uSony: You Actually Shouldn’t Use Waterproof Xperia Phones Underwaterr

4 4 4 9

• 

  A promotional photo for the Xperia Z5.

  Sony’s doing a bit of an about face after touting its Xperia devices as being waterproof enough that users can take pictures and videos underwater, updating its support page to advise against doing exactly that.

  Despite the fact that Sony’s most recent phone, the Xperia Z5, comes with an Ingress Protection rating of IP68 — the highest possible in dust and water protection — and the marketing lengths Sony went to when bragging about all the awesome photos and videos you could take in the pool with its devices, the company has a few new statements on its site that contradict all of that, points out Xperia Blog.

  Included on the page for water and dust protection: “Remember not to use the device underwater” and “The IP rating of your device was achieved in laboratory conditions in standby mode, so you should not use the device underwater, such as taking pictures.”

  Laboratory conditions are a lot different than someone jumping into a pool, swimming around like a speedy little tadpole and generally moving the camera around a bunch. To that end, Sony’s updated support page notes that the devices are tested “gently” for their waterproof abilities. They also aren’t whipping them around underwater, a Sony mobile support rep explained.

  “Moving or operating the device while it is submerged is not tested during the laboratory tests,” the comment reads. “There are also many environmental factors which we could not assess (e.g. water movement or water pressure changes during the movement), if a device is used underwater. Therefore we recommend not submerge our Xperia Z5 in water.”

  Xperia Blog notes that the disclaimers were first spotted for the Xperia Z3+/Z4 in May, but they thought it was just something related to those handsets. When the statements appeared with the launch of the Z5, that’s when people started to notice Sony was trying to reset the phone’s waterproof limits.

  It’s potentially confusing for customers, what with the hooplah surrounding Sony’s marketing of its flagship phones (up until the Xperia Z3+/Z4, at least). Many of those promotions included a slew of photos of the phones having all kinds of fun underwater. For example: a commercial for the Z3 showed someone diving into the pool and then taking a picture underwater.

  The change of tune could be tied to the cost of repairing phones that fail underwater while they’re under warranty — if users have plugged all ports and memory card slots, etc. in the phones before submerging them and they’re damaged, Sony could be on the hook to fix them.

  Xperia points to conflicting language on Sony’s site that remains despite the updated support page for the phones, including the product page for the Z3, which reads: “You can even dive down to 1.5 metres with it.”

  The Z5 product page has the new disclaimer, however: “You should not put the device completely underwater or expose it to seawater, salt water, chlorinated water or liquids such as drinks. Abuse and improper use of device will invalidate warranty.”

  The support page also has a list of which water-related activities its devices can handle. Acceptable? Spilling water on the device, using it with wet fingers, getting caught in the rain, having water splash on it in the tub. Not acceptable? Dunking it in that tub, or, again, going underwater with it.

  This doesn’t mean your phone will definitely be busted with a dip in the pool, but Sony doesn’t want to take the chance that it will, so it’s covering its butt.

  So how can Sony claim an IP score of IP68 — the best possible for a device — for the the Z5? First you’ve got to understand what the numbers mean: the 6 means it has the highest dust protection rating (“Dust tight.”), and the 8 corresponds to its waterproofness (“Protected against the effects of continued immersion in water at depths greater than 1 metre. The exact conditions are specified for each device by the manufacturer.”).

  In this case, it seems Sony is — very carefully — defending its claim to that 8, by noting that the device is protected against continued immersion, but only when it’s tenderly placed in a lab container and oh-so-gently lowered to that depth.

  Sony changes stance on waterproof phones: Do not use underwater [Xperia Blog]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uNASA TV Will Soon Bring Outer Space To Your Living Room In Ultra-HD 4Kr

4 4 4 9

• Who needs to sit outside and gaze at the stars when you can get a more detailed view of space happenings from your television or smartphone? If you’re looking for a different kind of space-escape than simply staring at the stars and old video footage, then NASA’s new channel might be for you – that is if you have the right TV. 

  NASA announced today that it has teamed up with Harmonic – a video delivery infrastructure company – for the November 1 launch of 4K (Ultra-HD) version of its current space-focused television channel.

  The channel, which NASA claims is the first non-commercial UHD channel in North America, will be sourced from high-resolution images and video generated on the International Space Station and other current NASA missions, as well as re-mastered footage from historical missions.

  “As NASA reaches new heights and reveals the unknown, the NASA TV UHD channel can bring that journey to life in every home,” Peter Alexander, chief marketing officer at Harmonic said in a statement.

  The new offering, made possible through the Space Act Agreement between Harmonic and the NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, will have the capability of delivering video content, four times the resolution of HD video.

  Viewers can access the footage via wide range of 4K and UHD TVs and other devices. However, NASA points out that Harmonic is still currently in discussions with pay TV operators to carry the channel on satellite, cable and optical networks for consumer access.

  NASA’s current channel is not available on widely used services like Comcast and Time Warner, the Verge reports.

  Those hoping to stream the channel on the internet must have at least 13 Mbps access connectivity, NASA says.

  [via The Verge]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uLyft & First National Bank Busted For Forcing Customers To Accept Robocalls & Spam Textr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Σπύρος Βάθης)
  

  As we recently pointed out with the PayPal terms of service, it’s against the law for a company to require that its customers to accept spam text messages and pre-recorded, auto-dialed robocalls. Someone should have forwarded that message on to Lyft and First National Bank. The FCC has cited both companies for forcing their customers to agree to unwanted marketing messages, in violation of federal law.

  In order to comply with Section 64.1200(f)(8) of the FCC Rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, any company wanting to make robocalls to consumers must obtain “prior express written consent.” Additionally, the consumer must not be required to agree to accept these calls “as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.”

  But the FCC says First National (F.N.B. Corporation) and Lyft violated these rules by telling people that if they wanted to be customers of these businesses, they had to accept robocalls or spam texts.

  According to the citation issued for F.N.B. [PDF], when First National customers first go online to use the bank’s website they are told they have to agree to the company’s “Online Banking Services Agreement,” which declares — without providing any way to opt out — that users consent to receiving texts and other marketing messages on the phone number provided at registration.

  The bank makes a similar demand — again, without a method for opting out — for First National customers who want to use Apple Pay with their bank-issued cards.

  The FCC considers these to be “blanket agreements” that require “all consumers to affirm in order to obtain service” and “do not allow any opportunity for consumers to provide input on the terms.”

  While the First National citation appears pretty cut-and-dry, the Lyft citation [PDF] is a little more complicated.

  The ridesharing service’s Terms of Service automatically opt-in a customer to robocalls and texts. The company claims in the terms that it offers an “unsubscribe” option for people looking to avoid these marketing messages but notes in the terms that opting out “may impact your use of the Lyft Platform or the Services.”

  Furthermore, the FCC contends that “contrary to the explicit representations in the Lyft Terms of Service… Lyft does not, in fact, provide ‘unsubscribe options’ for consumers to follow.”

  Investigators say the only way to get out of these unwanted messages is to search for opt-out instructions on the Lyft website’s “help center.” And the only thing the FCC could find were directions for stopping texts from Lyft (you reply with “STOP”); no details could be found on the Lyft site for avoiding robocalls.

  The icing on the spam cake for the FCC was the discovery that stopping marketing texts from Lyft meant stopping all texts from Lyft, including security confirmation texts needed to log in to one’s Lyft account.

  “In other words, exercising the option to decline marketing messages made it impossible to use Lyft’s services,” reads the citation, which deems Lyft’s opt-out representation as “illusory in nature,” and concludes that Lyft “effectively requires all consumers to agree to receive marketing text messages and calls on their mobile phones in order to use services.”

  The FCC has given both companies 30 days to reply to the citations and called on them to cease the allegedly unlawful practices. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to $16,000 for each future violation or for each day of a continued violation.

  “Consumers have the right to choose whether they want marketing calls and texts to their cell phones,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau, in a statement. “Today, we again make clear that such calls and texts are unlawful without express written consumer consent. We urge any company that unlawfully conditions its service on consent to unwanted marketing calls and texts to act swiftly to change its policies.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uDon’t Pay A Telemarketer $500 Up Front For A Discount Travel Club Membershipr

4 4 4 9

• Everyone loves bargains, and there are some discount cards that are worthwhile. However, if someone calls you up and offers to sell you a discount travel card for only $500, save your money for your actual travel instead. One woman who purchased one of these cards wishes that she had saved her money instead: now that she’s bought the card, she can’t actually reserve any travel.

  For some reason, the company, isn’t returning her phone calls now that they have her money. Sure, the giant “passport” and VIP membership card look fancy enough, but they’re not worth $500. The California woman who paid for a travel club membership thought she might be able to use it to get some flight discounts: after just a few flights to Florida, it would pay for itself, right?

  She called the company repeatedly, trying to make her discounted reservations. They didn’t get back to her. The “club” has a website, but it doesn’t list any prices, and to get actual information you have to pay a “processing fee,” even if you’ve already paid $500 for the “VIP Card.” That’s not much of a bargain.

  She contacted CBS Sacramento: usually enlisting a media outlet prods companies into some kind of action, but they didn’t respond to the station’s calls. While paying with a credit card would let a customer dispute the charge for a useless membership, she paid with a check, so she’s going to file a complaint with the state attorney general.

  Call Kurtis: I Can’t Get Travel Deals After Joining $500 Travel Club [CBS Sacramento]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uCalifornia Debt Bill Allowing Consumers To Fight Unfair Default Judgments Passes Senater

4 4 4 9

• 

  Daniel Lobo

  We recently told you how potentially millions of Americans are stuck with someone else’s debt because of the large number of default judgments in favor of debt collectors.  Yesterday, lawmakers in California approved a bill aimed at giving consumers in that state some ability to fight back.
  

  Default judgments in debt cases are problematic because the collectors who file these complaints sometimes have incomplete or inaccurate information and can end up suing the wrong person based on the belief that they are the debtor. So if a defendant doesn’t appear in court because they never knew they were even being sued, they can face a steep uphill battle to shed themselves of this judgment — especially if they don’t learn of the court ruling until years later.

  Passage of Senate Bill 641, introduced by Sen. Bob Wieckowski, gives a consumer the ability fight back against abusive debt collection tactics by asking a court to set aside default judgments and hear the case on the merits within 180 days after the first actual notice of the lawsuit.

  The protection would ensure that consumers can defend themselves in situations where they received no initial notice that they were being sued, through no fault of their own.

  Under current law, if a case is over two years old, consumers have to get an attorney and file a lawsuit, which is too costly for low-income Californians.

  “This is an important step forward to providing increased due process protections for California consumers,” Wieckowski said in a statement. “Legal services providers and other non-profit organizations across the state that work with low- and middle-income Californians are seeing an alarming number of debt collection cases where consumers are getting their wages garnished without ever getting a day in court.”

  Of course, setting aside the default judgment doesn’t automatically void the plaintiff’s claim, it merely restarts the lawsuit, allowing the defendant to properly argue their case.

  Consumer advocates have previously pointed out that hitting this reset button on the complaint restores a consumer’s right to defend herself and have her day in court – a day that was robbed of her the first time around.

  “Debt buyers are in the best position to retain important documents related to service of process,” Suzanne Martindale, policy counsel with Consumers Union said last month. “It makes no sense at all to strip away a consumer’s right to defend herself simply because debt buyers may not have their paperwork in order.”

  Wieckowski points out that the need for the law has never been greater. Just this week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against the country’s two largest debt buyers for illegal collection practices.

  The companies, Encore Capital Group and Portfolio Recovery Associates, allegedly threatened and deceived consumers and filed lawsuits against them without having the intent to prove many of the debts, winning the vast majority of the lawsuits by default when consumers failed to defend themselves.

  In addition to passing SB 641, the Senate also approved a measure that would create a tiered-garnishment rate to lower the high percentage of income currently taken from low-income workers’ paychecks and to recognize local minimum wage ordinances.

  Currently, the wage garnishment level is 25 percent, the maximum allowed under federal law.

  “For the many Californians living paycheck to paycheck the loss of a job or a medical event can quickly send families spiraling into debt,” Wieckowski said. “These two bills will help people get out from under their debt and fight default judgments for debt they don’t owe or have already paid off.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uYou Can Now Make Your Own Pepsi At Home With A SodaStreamr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (JeepersMedia)

  SodaStream recently said it’d be focusing more on sparkling waters than on competing with traditional sodas, but it seems now that even if it did want to beat Big Soda, it’d rather just join’em, instead: after a limited trial run of Pepsi-flavored caps in Florida last year, SodaStream is expanding the partnership to offer the caps filled with Pepsi and Sierra Mist flavors to everyone.

  Pepsi says the caps will be available through the SodaStream website and will be sold at about 50 Bed Bath & Beyond stores as well, reports Reuters, with a four-cap pack selling for $3.49.

  Each cap will flavor about a half liter of carbonated water, using a system that allows the caps to latch onto the top of SodaStream bottles and then release its contents.

  The twosome will be competing with the other major name in the soda business, Coca-Cola, and SodaStream’s rival, Keurig. Those two companies previously announced plans to start selling a cold beverage machine for at-home use, called, aptly enough, the Keurig Kold Machine, this fall.

  PepsiCo deepens ties with SodaStream for homemade product [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uWould You Pay $200 For A Machine That Only Brews Single Servings Of Tea?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (JeepersMedia)

  If you’re a fan of machines that dispense a single serving of liquids at a time, here’s to hoping you have a a lot of room on your kitchen counter: Unilever is betting people love their tea enough to shell out about $200 for a Lipton tea machine, dubbed the T.O. and made by Krups.

  The €179 machine is set to debut in France next week to compete with a similar Nespresso machine from Nestle (that costs about €79) reports Bloomberg, with a box of 10 tea capsules costing about €3.90 euros.

  It’s unclear at this point if it’ll expand to other countries or if it works with any other brands or kinds of beverages other than Lipton tea. Lipton currently sells K-Cups of its tea for Keurig machines, and there are various other brands with their own teas on single-serving pod scene as well, at least in the U.S., so it’s unlikely there’s a huge need for a devoted tea machine.

  The appeal is slightly unclear to us — it’s understandable if you don’t want to drink a whole teapot of tea, but are tea bags difficult? Or do people just not want to boil water for a single cup of tea? Is there something special about this particular machine that results in a superior cup of tea? We don’t know.

  Is this something you’d be into, if it lands on our shores, or were the folks at Unilever perhaps partaking in mind-altering substances when they decided this was a great idea? Take our poll below.

  Move Over, Kettle: Unilever to Sell $200 Lipton Tea Machine [Bloomberg]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist