вторник, 14 июля 2015 г.

uComcast’s High-Speed Fiber Service Will Cost $300/Month Just For Internetr


4 4 4 9
  • In addition to the $300/month subscription for just broadband, installation and activation fees could hit you up for another $1,000.

    In addition to the $300/month subscription for just broadband, installation and activation fees could hit you up for another $1,000.

    It’s been a few months since Comcast first announced it would bring super-fast 2 Gbps fiberoptic broadband to a few select markets, but the company had remained quiet about what it intended to charge. Now that we’re seeing what Comcast expects customers to pay, we can understand why.

    Comcast has finally launched a site to promote its Gigabit Pro service, which is slated to roll out in Atlanta, Chicago, and multiple markets in California, Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, and Indiana.

    For just for the broadband service, customers will be charged $299/month. While Gigabit Pro is twice as fast as Google Fiber’s top advertised speed, that price is more than four times the $70/month charge for Google’s broadband only service. Even when you get Google Fiber’s bundle with TV service, you’re only looking at $130/month, less than half the cost of Gigabit Pro alone.

    And then there’s the install cost. Want Gigabit Pro? Be prepared to pay up to $500 for an installation that may take 6-8 weeks to complete (and that’s according to Comcast’s estimate, so take it with a huge grain of salt).

    But wait! The fine print also says you could also be on the hook for fees of “up to $500 for activation,” bringing the total to $1,000 before you’ve even checked your e-mail on your super-fast connection. Google waives its construction fees for customers signing up for commitments of one year, half the required time to get the Comcast pricing.

    And then there’s a few final kicks in the butt from Comcast: “Equipment, taxes and fees and other applicable charges extra.” For $299/month, the least Comcast could do is not nickel-and-dime you further for equipment fees.

    As DSLreports.com notes, canceling your Gigabit Pro service would hit you for an early termination fee that could be in the thousands of dollars.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


понедельник, 13 июля 2015 г.

uPoll: Most People With Digital Wallets Don’t Bother To Use Themr


4 4 4 9
  • Many of our readers have smartphones, and you could be reading this post on a smartphone right now. While they make fine Consumerist-reading devices, we keep hearing that smartphones will become out method of choice to make in-person payments, and we won’t have to carry physical wallets around. However, while Google and Apple would love for everyone to use their respective digital wallet products, consumers simply aren’t interested yet.

    A recent Gallup poll shows that there aren’t many of us walking around with potential digital wallets in our pockets to begin with. Only 13% of adults with smartphones have one that offers a digital wallet app at all. Out of that minority of smartphone users, only a fraction of people have their digital wallets set up and use them at every opportunity: 11% of young adults report doing so, and 11% of men of all ages do too.

    The majority of people who own smartphones equipped with a wallet app use it rarely or have never even set it up. That makes them part of the majority of people polled who said that they don’t expect to begin using a digital wallet in the next year, even if they are equipped for it.

    Why don’t people want to use digital wallets, anyway? Out of the people who said they have no plans to use one in the next year, whether they have a capable phone already or not, most (55%) said that the systems seem insecure. 21% of people say that they don’t know enough about them, and 14% say they don’t see any advantages to using a mobile wallet.

    No One Is Winning the Battle for Digital Wallet Customers [Gallup]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uCompany Behind Fruit Stripe Gum Suing E-Cig Company Over Vape Flavorr


4 4 4 9
  • If you’re the kind of person who favors fruity flavors in your e-cigarette, hey, that’s your choice. But Ferrara Candy doesn’t to be tied to any flavor of vape liquid, and is suing an online e-cig company claiming it infringed on its trademark for Fruit Stripe gum with one of its offerings.

    Ferrara claims in a complaint filed recently that TrinitySun Inc. used the name “Fruit Stripe” and a design without Ferrara’s authorization, reports the Chicago Tribune, violating its trademark rights.

    The Tribune says the name of the flavor was later changed to “Striped gum,” though it still was accompanied by a photo of five colorfully striped pieces of gum that look similar to Fruit Stripe.

    “If parents thought Ferrara Candy was trying to use its famous candy brands to hook children into nicotine products, it would dramatically and irreparably harm Ferrara Candy and its FRUIT STRIPE trademark,” Ferrara said in the suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

    According to the complaint, Ferrara claims it reached out to the e-cig company about the issue multiple times in 2014, and sent three cease-and-desist letters last fall. It says TrinitySun did change its use of Fruit Stripe trademarks on the site somewhat, but didn’t get rid of them completely.

    The Tribune notes that after reaching out to the president of TrinitySun about the lawsuit on Monday, the product was no longer available on the company’s website.

    “I had a flavor that was labeled as Fruit Stripe gum, they asked me to remove that, and I did,” he said, adding that he switched the product name to “Striped Gum” e-liquid “probably six months ago.”

    He says he has not seen the lawsuit but has reached out to Ferrara and was waiting to hear back.

    Ferrara’s suit asks the company to stop using “Fruit Stripe” and any other mark, word, designs or name that are “confusingly similar” to the company’s Fruit Stripe marks.

    Ferrara Candy sues e-cig seller [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uKnow The Possible Problems Before You Opt For Run-Flat Tiresr


4 4 4 9
  • If you’ve bought a new car or replacement tires for your old car lately, you may have had the pricey option of run-flat tires. The sales pitch for them is easy: while some people may enjoy changing tires or waiting for roadside assistance, most people don’t. Run-flats aren’t a foolproof way to avoid tire trouble.

    One BMW owner told our sibling publication Consumer Reports that he thought the $2,500 tire insurance policy that the dealership offered him was outlandish, until he ended up replacing a total of eight tires at about $500 each. The problem is that run-flat tires aren’t immune to side-wall damage, which leads to unfortunate comparisons to the Titanic and unexpected flats.

    Worse: the first time that this happened to the reader, he learned that his car came with a repair kit instead of a spare in the trunk. That’s a common issue with new cars, aWhen you buy a car, new or used, you should know what kind of tires are on it before you take the keys: you could be buying a car in June that still has snow tires on it, for example. (Yes, this happened to someone I know. At a dealership.)

    Consumer experience sheds dim light on this increasingly common technology [Consumer Reports]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uOscar-Winning Director Of Snowden Documentary Trying To Find Out Why She’s Been Detained At Airports So Muchr


4 4 4 9
  • Laura Poitras recently won the Academy Award for CITIZENFOUR, her documentary on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, but the director claims that she’s long been hassled by U.S. federal authorities for years, resulting in multiple unmerited airport detentions. Now she’s suing the government to find out exactly why.

    Poitras, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed a Freedom Of Information Act [FOIA] complaint [PDF] in federal court against the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “seeking the disclosure and release of agency records improperly withheld” from the filmmaker by these agencies and affiliated sub-agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Transportation Security Administration, and the FBI.

    Poitras says that during the six-year period from 2006 to 2012, she was searched, questioned, and subjected to hours-long security screenings at U.S. and overseas airports on more than 50 occasions — every time she entered the country.

    The lawsuit says the harassment began in the summer of 2006, when airline agents were compelled to call Homeland Security before issuing Poitras a boarding pass. Following that incident, her boarding passes were all marked “SSSS,” and she claims she was subjected to increased security.

    Among the incidents in the timeline given in the complaint:

    • July 2006: Poitras arrived at Newark International on a flight from Israel and was met at the gate (not at the customs checkpoint) by Customs officials who subsequently detained her for two hours of questioning.

    • August 2006: Poitras was en route from Sarajevo to New York City, but during her transfer in Vienna, Austria, she was paged by airport security. She says she was then taken in a van to a separate inspection location where all her bags were searched. The head of airport security allegedly told Poitras that her “Threat Score” was 400 out of 400 points, but ultimately allowed her to continue on to NYC. When she landed at JFK International, Customs agents again met her at the gate and detained her for hours before allowing her to enter the country.

    • December 2006: After landing at JFK on a flight from Dubai, Poitras says she was again detained by Customs agents. This time, she was told she had a criminal record, but Poitras says she’s never been arrested.

    • May 2007: Customs officials met her at the gate at JFK following her flight from Yemen. The CBP didn’t just detain and question her, but allegedly photocopied all of her reporters’ notebooks, receipts, and business cards.

    • February 2010: While trying to depart JFK for Berlin, airport security told Poitras that she had been put on a “No Fly” list by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. Days later, while trying to return from Berlin, she was once again told that she was on one of these lists.

    • August 2010: Another flight from Yemen to New York. This time, when she arrive at JFK, Poitras says her laptop, video camera, footage, and cellphone were taken by border agents and held for 41 days.

    The detentions did not end, contends the complaint, until after Glenn Greenwald wrote about Poitras’s ordeal on Salon.com in April 2012.

    Poitras attempted to get some answers about why she’d been targeted, filing FOIA requests with the various agencies in 2014.

    In response, the agencies claim they either don’t have the requested records or simply not responded, in violation of the terms of FOIA. The FBI recently told her that it had only located a total of six pages relevant to her request, and that it was withholding all six of those pages due to grand jury secrecy rules.

    “I’m filing this lawsuit because the government uses the U.S. border to bypass the rule of law,” explains Poitras in a statement. “This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy. I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted.”

    “The government used its power to detain people at airports, in the name of national security, to target a journalist whose work has focused on the effects of the U.S. war on terror,” said David Sobel, EFF senior counsel. “In refusing to respond to Poitras’ FOIA requests and wrongfully withholding the documents about her it has located, the government is flouting its responsibility to explain and defend why it subjected a law-abiding citizen—whose work has shone a light on post-9/11 military and intelligence activities—to interrogations and searches every time she entered her country.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uBoy Scouts Of America Moves To Lift Nationwide Ban On Gay Adultsr


4 4 4 9
  • Earlier this year, Robert Gates, current National President of the Boy Scouts of America and former head of the CIA, asked leadership to give some thought to the organization's current standards.

    Earlier this year, Robert Gates, current National President of the Boy Scouts of America and former head of the CIA, asked leadership to give some thought to the organization’s current standards.

    The Boy Scouts of America Executive Committee announced today that it has adopted a resolution that, if ratified later this month, would lift the organization’s nationwide ban on gay adults working and volunteering with troops.

    According to an announcement by BSA, the committee’s vote on the matter was unanimous. It now goes before the BSA National Executive Board to be ratified on July 27.

    “This resolution will allow chartered organizations to select adult leaders without regard to sexual orientation,” reads the committee’s statement on the resolution. “This change allows Scouting’s members and parents to select local units, chartered to organizations with similar beliefs, that best meet the needs of their families.”

    At the same time as it lifts the organization-wide ban on gay adults, the ultimate decision at the troop level is left up to each individual charter.

    “This change would also respect the right of religious chartered organizations to continue to choose adult leaders whose beliefs are consistent with their own,” explains the committee.

    BSA has been under increased pressure to allow troops to bring on adult leaders regardless of their sexual orientation. In 2014, Disney’s Ears To You program ceased its funding of scout troops over the organization’s across-the-board ban.

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office recently wrote to the BSA to remind the organization of its obligation to uphold equal protections for every person in that state, says he’s pleased with today’s news.

    “In a year already marked by historic advancements for the rights of LGBT Americans, today’s announcement by the Boy Scouts is yet another important step forward,” said Schneiderman in a statement e-mailed to Consumerist. “I am pleased that the Boy Scouts have taken steps to join the growing list of organizations and companies that share my office’s commitment to equal justice for all.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uHow One Guy Ended Up With $1,500 In Toll Bills For Car He Says He Sold Two Years Agor


4 4 4 9
  • When you sell a car, you don’t expect to be charged every time its new driver goes through a toll. But that’s exactly what’s happened to one Texas man, who says he sold his car in a Craigslist deal two years ago: since the day after that sale closed, he’s received more than $1,500 in toll bills that he claims he shouldn’t have to pay.

    “There was just no way I could rack up this much in tolls,” the man told WFAA of his story. “The bills started approximately the day after I sold the car. He runs approximately six tolls a day, I guess to work and back.”

    While this sounds unfair, there’s one major caveat in the man’s story: the thing is, he didn’t remove the license plate from the Nissan Maxima when he sold it in 2013, meaning the car’s registration was still  linked to his address.

    He admits that he didn’t know you were supposed to take the license plate off a car before selling it, a gap in his knowledge that has made it hard for him to convince the North Texas Transit Authority that he shouldn’t be getting the toll bills.

    A spokesman for NTTA says by law, the agency has to send the invoice to the registered owner of the plates. And in this case, the NTTA notes, the owner didn’t complete a Vehicle Transfer Notice until October 2014, and hasn’t been able to provide the car’s bill of sale as requested.

    “It was misplaced,”admits the car owner. “I mean it had been so long.”

    He’s learning a tough lesson he says, explaining that he’d rather go to jail and sit it out, if it comes to that. In the meantime, he’s willing to fight the bills in court.

    Man claims Toll Authority is billing him for car he sold [WFAA]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist