четверг, 6 августа 2015 г.

uFCC Adopts Rule Saying Your Phone Company Actually Has To Tell You Before They Kill Your Copper Landliner


4 4 4 9

  • The age of copper is over. Or at least, the nation’s biggest telephone legacy landline carriers really want it to be. And the FCC is okay with that — as long as companies stick to a few new consumer protection rules that the commission voted on today.

    The FCC announced the proposal in June, and voted 3-2 today to adopt it.

    The new rule requires the owners of copper-wire networks to directly notify their retail (non-wholesale) customers of plans to kill those networks at least three months in advance. That’s designed to make incumbent carriers upgrade with intention, instead of just not doing repairs. Interconnecting carriers and wholesale customers — basically, those competitors who offer their own service but over Verizon’s wires — get at least six months of notice.

    The rule does not require businesses to seek permission from the FCC to rip out their copper and replace it with fiber, so long as the same level of service is available to all customers after the swap is done.

    As usual, each of the commissioners took it in turn to deliver his or her opinion on the matter before voting. During her remarks, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who voted in favor of the proceeding, pointed out that we have an existing model to look at for how major tech transitions get rolled out and communicated: the digital TV transition of 2009.

    “With the DTV transition, the government invested billions of dollars for consumer education campaigns,” Clyburn pointed out. “You almost had to live under a rock not to know that the DTV transition was coming. And all of this work was done for an estimated 16-19 million households that did not subscribe to pay-TV, because the number one goal was for no-one to be left behind.”

    Clyburn continued by pointing out that about 50% of all residential telephone connections — 37 million lines — still remain on legacy (copper) tech. “Many of these consumers are harder to reach,” she added. “They’re elderly, and many of them lack broadband at home. And while I sincerely appreciate the chairman adding clarifications and encouraging providers to do more to ensure that consumers are informed and understand the impact of any change, I still fear that the hardest-to-reach consumers that remain on legacy technology may remain unaware or ill-prepared for this transition. Especially if carriers are only required to notify them through, and I quote, ‘one neutral statement.'”

    “We all benefit if consumers understand and are ready for change,” she concluded.

    Commissioner Ajit Pai took a darker view of the proceedings, finding most of the FCC’s rule entirely unnecessary. “It appears that Chicken Little rules the roost,” he began.

    “As I warned nine months ago, when we commenced this proceeding, lobbyists are claiming that the sky will fall if fresh fiber replaces aging twisted pairs of copper. Ironically,” he continued, “these are the same lobbyists that lambaste bottlenecks in the broadband marketplace, who lecture us that broadband means fiber delivered at 25 Mbps connectivity, and who lament wireline transactions that they believe will delay fiber deployment.”

    “The order tacks three months of delay onto the copper retirement process, slowing down fiber deployment,” Pai complained. “And the order tells companies to spend more capital maintaining the legacy copper plant, even when fiber can cure any failures of that fading infrastructure.” “The American people aren’t asking Washington to slow rather than expedite the availability of high-speed broadband throughout our nation. They demand faster deployment, more competition, better service. They ask when their homes are going to be connected with next-generation fiber, not why the FCC isn’t doing more to promote copper.”

    However, as we have seen several times over the past few months, many copper-wire landline customers — often elderly — are in fact confused by why their phone company (Verizon) is threatening to shut off their service. Or they are confused as to why they can get neither repairs nor straight answers when something goes wrong, and are instead transferred without explanation to a service they do not understand or want.

    The FCC is not saying that landline companies need to stop the transition. They are saying that landline companies need to inform customers it’s happening.

    Chairman Tom Wheeler spoke last, pointing out that network owners have always had a certain level of responsibilities they are required to meet with regard to consumers. “The compact between those who build and operate networks and those who use them — that compact has not been changed because of a change in technology,” Wheeler said.

    “If a carrier is going to shut down an analog copper service, this item says three things. One: Go for it! We want you to utilize the advantages of fiber! We want to encourage that. BUT! Don’t do it in the dark,” Wheeler continued.

    “Let consumers know, in plenty of time, including letting them know the options that they have. And continue to provide comparable services to those leasing capacity, including those who lease wholesale capacity to provide retail competition.”

    “Changing technology is not a rationale for stifling service or competition,” Wheeler reiterated. “While I chuckle at the efforts of some to discover rate regulation hiding under this bed,” an accusation often also lobbied at net neutrality, “the decision today is a simple matter.”

    “Changing technology does not change responsibility. Fiber brings great cost savings, great efficiencies, and great opportunities for new services to carriers. But it does not bring the opportunity to walk away from the responsibilities that govern the relationship between those who build and those who use the facilities.”

    After Wheeler’s remarks, the commission took the vote and narrowly approved the measure.

    The commission also voted, less contentiously, to approve the part of the rule that would require phone companies to offer a solution for at least 8 hours’ worth of emergency back-up power to allow users to contact 911 even during a power outage.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uHBO Now Adds Chromecast Supportr


4 4 4 9
  • Screen Shot 2015-08-06 at 3.08.50 PMLast month, HBO Now crossed the tech dividing line, making its way to Android devices after months of being exclusively available to Apple device users. Today, the standalone streaming service announced it was taking things a bit farther by adding support for Google Chromecast.

    The latest Android and iOS update brings a new set of capabilities, including the ability to send what you’re watching on your smartphone to the TV via Google’s streaming stick, according to HBO Now’s device page and the App Store listing for the service.

    The latest HBO Now update – available in the App Store and Google Play this afternoon – also adds push notifications. While the update doesn’t specify what the notifications will be, The Verge suggests they’ll entail alerts about new content and the latest episodes available on the service.

    Although HBO previously announced it would launch versions of HBO Now that work on the Amazon Fire Stick and FireTV, the device page still lists those options as “coming soon.”

    While it’s taken this long for HBO Now to reach Chromecast, HBO Go has long been available for the device. Interestingly, HBO Go’s partner app for Cinemax, Max Go, still lacks support for Chromecast.

    [via The Verge]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


u11 Million People Are Trying Apple Music, 2 Million Already Payingr


4 4 4 9
  • iphone6-3up-applemusic-features-pr-print-1Can Apple’s music-streaming service convert its users into paying customers once the service’s trial period is done? How many people have signed up for Apple Music so far, anyway? The company has finally provided the world with an update on its shiny new streaming service, including the information that it already has some paying customers.

    We wondered about this when the service first came out, especially since the company at first said that it would pay musicians zero percent of nothing in royalties, then announced that musicians would get some undisclosed amount.

    It turns out, though, that Apple could be paying musicians with a percentage of their revenue, since the service is taking in some money. USA Today learned that two million subscribers have already whipped out their credit cards for the $15/month “family plan,” which can be shared between up to six people. That means roughly 70% of $30 million will be distributed to artists already, if that figure represents the number of paid subscriptions.

    There are 11 million regular Apple Music subscribers who are still on their three-month free trial. Some may choose to convert to a paying subscription; some may accidentally forget to cancel and convert to a paid subscription even though they didn’t want to. (Here’s how to avoid that.)

    Apple Music hooks 11 million trial members, App Store has record July [USA Today]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uSenate Report Rips Airlines For Failing To Clearly Disclose Feesr


4 4 4 9
  • Barring a law outlawing them — or severely limiting them — fees for everything from checked bags, to food, to in-flight entertainment, to preferred seating, to early boarding (and possibly early deplaning) are hear to stay. But a new report from staffers on the Senate Commerce Committee claims that airlines may be going too far in trying to hide some of these add-on costs.

    In 2014, commercial airlines in the U.S. made more than $3.5 billion from baggage fees, compared to $464 million in 2007, before the current fee trend began.

    Another $2.98 billion in fee revenue came from reservation change/cancellation fees, that’s more than three times 2007 total of $915 million.

    In addition to more airlines charging for all checked bags (Southwest now being the only major domestic carrier that does not), these fees have increased since their introduction, by upwards of 67% since 2009. Fees have also increased by anywhere from 40% to 100% for passengers’ second checked bag during these years.

    Likewise, cancellation/change fees have gone up, now ranging anywhere from $60 to $1,000. According to the report, between 2009 and 2014, these fees increased by as much as 66%. Even on the lower end of fee increases, where they only jumped by 33%, that’s still several times the rate of inflation (10.3%) during these years.

    Making matters worse is that — unlike most other ancillary fees — travelers can’t opt in or out of change/cancellation charges.

    And yet, contends the report, the price charged for changing or canceling tickets often bears “little to no relation to the actual cost incurred by the airline when a ticket is changed or cancelled.”

    “Airlines justify their change/cancellation fees by claiming the fees are necessary to cover the opportunity cost of an airline not being able to rebook a seat,” reads the report. “This rationale, however, fails to account for why many airlines charge the same penalty fees regardless of the lead time a passenger provides for an airline to resell the ticket.”

    United, Delta, American, Hawaiian, and Spirit airlines all charge travelers a flat fee for a changing or canceling a ticket. The fee does not vary based on lead time before the scheduled flight. There are airlines, like JetBlue and Alaska, that do base the maximum charge for a change or cancellation on the proximity on the calendar to departure.

    The report also takes issue with the idea that these fees are intended to deter consumers from changing travel plans on a whim. The report argues that if deterrence is indeed the rationale, “airlines should strive to provide consumers with clear notice of the potential for substantial penalties should they wish to change their plans.”

    But, claim the senators, their review of seven different airline website shows that “consumers do not generally receive prominent disclosures regarding these fees when procuring airfare.”

    Rather than prominently displaying these fees, the reports says they are usually found on a page separate from the listed airfares, written in small type under generic headers like “fare rules,” “fare restrictions,” “optional services,” and “optional fees.”

    The report calls out United.com for being particularly confusing.

    First, you pick your itinerary. Then on the next page, there is a small link to a page called “taxes and fees.”

    united1

    Clicking on that link brings up a page that lists certain fees for ticketing but does not include change/cancellation fees.

    united2

    No, you have to then click the link for “charges for baggage or optional services,” which then brings up another screen providing detailed info on baggage fees and a whole host of other charges. In fact, we had to scroll down four pages to get to the one small item that reads “Other flight changes and cancellations,” which only states that fees range “From $0 to $1,000 per passenger, based on applicable fare rules.”

    united3

    It’s only after you select your flights and get to the “Review Trip Itinerary” page that you get the tiny link, included among others, where you can “View Rules and Restrictions.”

    united4

    The text on the resulting page takes up more than 40 screens on your typical laptop. Beyond that, the rules provide no actual dollar amount for the penalty for changing or canceling your flights, only confusing details written in English, but not in plain English.

    Another transparency issue involves passengers who go online to pick their seat only to find that the only available seats are so-called “premium” seats that come with a surcharge, often because they provide slightly more legroom.

    deltaseat

    While some airlines, like JetBlue, include a notice on their website explaining that passengers presented with only premium seating can skip this portion of the process and will be given a free seat at the gate, others make no mention of this option. Thus, some travelers are paying for premium seats they don’t want and don’t need to pay for.

    “The traveling public is being nickel-and-dimed to death,” said Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida. “What’s worse is that many flyers don’t learn about the actual cost of their travel until it’s too late.”

    Nelson said he intends to press his colleagues to act on the report’s recommendations when the Senate begins its work on legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uMost Small Business Owners Aren’t Ready For Chip-And-PIN Credit Cardsr


4 4 4 9
  • Following a string of high-profile data breaches last year, Visa and MasterCard handed down a requirement that all merchants transition to the more secure chip-and-PIN payment system by October of this year. While several major retailers have already made or are in the process of making the switch, a new report finds that many small business owners don’t even know about the deadline – or the potentially costly consequence of not meeting it.

    A new survey of 600 small business owners compiled by Wells Fargo found that more than half of those who accept point-of-sale card payments are unaware of the requirement to change to EMV chip card technology.

    EMV chip-enabled credit and debit cards, which are being sent to customers by their financial institutions, are designed to protect against fraudulent transactions by encoding cardholder information within an encrypted microchip and data that changes with each transaction.

    Nearly 51% of the small business owners that took part in Wells Fargo’s survey say they were unaware that after October 1, they would be liable to cover the costs of any fraudulent transactions.

    That means if a merchant is using the old swipe-and-sign system they are liable for the fraudulent charges if the customer has a chip card. Conversely, if the merchant has the proper chip-and-PIN system but the bank hasn’t issued a new chip-and-PIN card to the customer, then the bank is liable.

    Of the business owners who currently accept point-of-sale card payments, only 31% say their systems are capable of accepting chip-enabled cards.

    When asked if they plan to upgrade their point-of-sale credit card terminals to accept EMV chip cards, just 29% of business owners said they intend to make the change before the Oct. 1 deadline.

    Another 34% reported they plan to make the switch after the October deadline, while 21% of merchants say they never plan to make the change.

    Business owners reported a variety of reasons for not making the shift by the October deadline:

    • 48% feel that upgrading their payment terminal will not impact their business.
    • 46% do not want to pay for the costs associated with upgrading.
    • 41% are not concerned about the liability shift in the case of fraud.

    Additionally, many small business owners – about 42% – expressed concern that the liability switch would reduce fraud for businesses.

    “While our industry has made great progress in the last year informing and preparing small business owners for the EMV liability shift, the survey findings show us that we have more work to do,” Debra Rossi, head of Wells Fargo Merchant Services, said in a statement.

    The shift to more secure card systems comes at a time when American credit cards represent nearly half — 47% — of all credit card fraud incidents. 

    The main culprit is one we’ve covered many times before: in the U.S., where magnetic stripe technology is still the dominant way payment cards are accepted, we are vulnerable to software incursions and theft. Simply put, we are low-hanging fruit. Intruding into a system like Target or Home Depot and making off with usable data for tens of millions of payment cards is easy as pie, at least as compared to other nations.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uTons Of Premium Cheese Cruelly Destroyed In Russian “Fromagicide”r


4 4 4 9
  • (RT)

    (RT)

    Bear with me folks, as I’m currently writing to you through a liquid veil of salty tears: sometimes, when countries aren’t getting along, they impose trade sanctions on each other like import or export bans on certain foods. Which is sad for people in those countries who can’t get their favorite grub. But it’s also sad when tons of premium cheese gets bulldozed and/or incinerated, the victim of trade spats between Russia and Western nations.

    In an incident dubbed “fromagicide” by Russian news source RT (video autoplays at that link), Russia is destroying tons of illegally imported food that came from Western countries, reports NPR News.

    It’s been a year since the country banned agricultural products from the West, a response to economic sanctions the U.S. and its European allies placed on Russia due to its efforts to influence neighboring Ukraine.

    Along with Parmesan and Dutch cheese, fruits, vegetables, Spanish ham and other food has reportedly been run over by steamrollers and thrown into incinerators today, after President Vladimir Putin ordered all “contraband” foods to be destroyed. Though those products were banned, many were relabeled and smuggled into the country, NPR notes.

    It’s not a popular move with many in Russia, with an online petition calling for the food to be given to the poor.

    Watch the video below, if you can stand the thought of tons of fine cheese being bulldozed and buried in a landfill, never to please anyone’s palate with their smooth, creaminess or fill a welcoming stomach with delight.

    We Will Bury You: Russia Bulldozes Tons Of European Cheese, Other Banned Food [NPR]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uArby’s Plays Along, Sees Jon Stewart Off Into The Meat-Hued Sunsetr


4 4 4 9
  • bowelsFor some reason that has never fully been explained, Arby’s has long been the favorite punching brisket of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, appearing as the fake sponsor of many segments. They didn’t pay for these on-air segments, and some brands might have tried to pay the network not to mention their name on-air. Arby’s, however, has learned the publicity value of playing along.

    runfromthemeats

    Their Meat Mountain sandwich, for example, was never supposed to be an actual item served to customers, because Arby’s presumably cares about its customers’ health and well-being. However, customers asked, and Arby’s obliged, turning the sandwich into an off-menu item and a viral Internet phenomenon.

    The company was also on its social media game when musician Pharrell williams showed up at the Grammy awards wearing a tall brown hat similar to the one in its logo. They played along all the way to eBay, where the hat sold for $44,000 in a fundraiser for Williams’ education nonprofit.

    Arby’s has played along with the “Daily Show” gag, finally buying ad time during Stewart’s last week as host to thank him for… well, they weren’t quite sure, but they paid Viacom cash money to show clips of Jon Stewart claiming that their products cause untold digestive distress. Thanks for playing along, Arby’s.

    Arby’s to Jon Stewart: Thank You for Being a Friend [YouTube]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist