четверг, 3 декабря 2015 г.

uT-Mobile Offering 128GB iPhone 6S For Price Of 16GB Model To AT&T Customers Who Jump Shipr


4 4 4 9
  • (Patrick)
    T-Mobile continues to pick on the company it once planned to spend eternity with, once again launching a promotion intended to lure AT&T customers away to the pugnacious little wireless provider.

    Starting tomorrow, current AT&T customers who are willing to flee the Death Star for the magenta-sand shores of T-Mobile can get a 128GB iPhone 6S for the price of the standard 16GB model, a discount of around $200. T-Mobile is also trying to sweeten the deal by throwing in discounts on accessories for AT&T ship-jumpers.

    If you’re making the switch, be aware that the $200 price difference between the two phones is paid in the form of credit applied to your T-Mo bill within 90 days.

    Customers still in contract with AT&T are eligible for up to $650/line to cover the cost of early termination fees. AT&T Next subscribers who aren’t technically in contract but can’t change service without paying off the balance owed on their phone can also get reimbursed by T-Mo. Either way, you would need to trade in your old phone to T-Mobile.

    The company says the offer isn’t just for AT&T postpaid customers, but also for users of the company’s GoPhone and Cricket prepaid services.

    Right now, T-Mo has put a Dec. 13 end date on the offer. The company says some sort of “gift” offer is forthcoming next week for current Verizon customers.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uYouTube Wants To Be Your New Netflix, Seeks Rights To TV And Moviesr


4 4 4 9
  • (JKehoe_Photos)
    If you want to curl up on the sofa on a cold winter night and watch a movie, that’s what Netflix is for. And if you want to watch music videos, mash-ups, or cats doing foolish things, you’ve got your YouTube. That’s how it’s been since approximately the dawn of time, by which we mean roughly the last five or six years. But it looks like the times, they are a-changing, and YouTube wants to be your one-stop shop for video of any and all sorts.

    As the Wall Street Journal reports, Google’s Alphabet’s big red video arm is “seeking streaming rights to TV series and movies.” Getting those rights would pour full-length features onto the service, making YouTube a direct competitor to now-venerable Netflix as well as Hulu and Amazon.

    The premium content on YouTube wouldn’t be for just anyone; the feature films and TV series on offer would be reserved for users of YouTube’s new $10 monthly ad-free subscription service.

    As the WSJ points out, YouTube users are, generally, not used to the idea of paying any money for using the service. The ads are an annoyance that hundreds of millions of users have simply learned to live with or ignore. So in order to draw people into the paying subscription tier, YouTube is going to need, well, offerings worth paying for.

    The everpresent Netflix catalog waxes and wanes as contracts are signed or expire, and as that service continues to focus on new serial content, there’s some competition in the back-catalog. Amazon and Hulu, through their own subscription services, have been increasingly jumping into the fray over the past few years with original and licensed content of their own.

    YouTube remains the internet’s dominant short-form video provider, but maybe not for long. They boast over a billion daily users… but so does Facebook, which has been (successfully) forcing its way into video hosting in a big way over the past several months. From a business perspective, now would be a really excellent time for YouTube to beef up its subscription service, for the customer loyalty and the revenue stream.

    The WSJ says that YouTube has brought in executives who used to work for Netflix to help make this happen. An unnamed source “familiar with the situation” told the WSJ that YouTube is hoping to have a “robust” collection of both original and licensed content on-hand for subscribers sometime in 2016.

    YouTube Seeks Streaming Rights to TV Shows, Movies [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uToy Maker VTech Hires Cyber Forensic Team To Help Beef Up Security After Data Breachr


4 4 4 9
ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uReport: Credit Card Reforms Saved Consumers $16B In Six Yearsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Jeremy P)
    In 2009, lawmakers passed a massive set of reforms for the credit card industry – known as the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) — aimed at protecting consumers though transparency, fairness, accountability and better access to an array of financial products. A new report from the agency tasked with enforcing these rules, finds that nearly six years after implementation, consumers have saved nearly $16 billion in fees. 

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which didn’t even exist at the time the law was passed, released a report [PDF] this morning detailing how the CARD Act has changed the landscape of credit card use.

    Since the reform law went into effect, the CFPB found that total costs to consumers have fallen with the elimination of certain back-end pricing practices such as over-limit fees.

    According to the report, consumers have avoided more than $9 billion in over-limit fees since 2009.

    Prior to the CARD Act [PDF], card issuers were able to charge users back-end fees that they may not have noticed unit they owed money. Card issuers could authorize transactions that put consumers over their credit limit and then charge a typical $35 over-limit fee

    Consumers saved $9 billion in overdraft fees since 2009.

    Under the CARD Act, issuers are required to get an affirmative opt-in from customers to be charged for exceeding their credit limits.

    Additionally, the report found that consumers have saved more than $7 billion in late fees under protections that require that penalty fees be “reasonable and proportional” to the relevant violation of accounts.

    Overall, the credit card landscape is more favorable for users since rules went into effect, with the total cost of credit roughly 2% lower than prior to the Act.

    And while a CFPB report in 2013 found that access to credit was more difficult for some people to obtain under the regulations, the Bureau now says that the situation has improved.

    The latest report found that available credit has increased 10% since 2012. In total, consumers had access to nearly $3.5 trillion in credit as of early 2015, the Bureau says, noting that the figure represents an increase of nearly $325 billion — or 10% — since early 2012.

    Since the CARD Act was introduced, the availability of credit has increased for all consumers.

    Increase in the availability of credit has translated in to more credit cards in consumers’ wallets, according to the report.

    More than 100 million credit card accounts – many of which offer free access to credit reports – were opened in 2014.

    While the protections under the CARD Act have translated to fewer costly fees and better access to fair credit, regulators still have concerns regarding risky practices, especially when it comes to subprime credit and deferred-interest promotions.

    Consumers looking to tangle with subprime credit card companies, should be aware that the total cost can be excessively high thanks in part to companies charging more for origination and maintenance fees.

    “This puts consumers at risk of more of their monthly payments going toward fees and interest charges, instead of the principal balance,” the CFPB warns. “Subprime companies also tend to have longer, more complicated agreements.”

    And while deferred-interest promotions promising “0% interest for 12 months” or “special financing” may be alluring, they often leave consumers with unexpected expenses if they miss the fine print.

    In many cases, if the balance of a deferred-interest card is not paid in full by a given date, the accumulated interest is assessed retroactively.

    “Given that the interest rate on these cards is generally around 25%, the magnitude of the interest charge — if and when it is assessed – can be substantial,” the report states.

    Other issues that remain to be tackled include rewards programs with obscure or incomplete terms and conditions, debt collection practices used by credit card issuers and long, complex agreements with card issuers.

    “The law made it easier for consumers to evaluate costs and risks by eliminating the worst back-end pricing practices in the market,” CFPB director Richard Cordray said in a prepared statement. “There is more work to do. But with commonsense rules in place, credit cards are safer and more affordable, credit is more available, and companies remain profitable with improved customer satisfaction.”



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uVerizon Tops List Of Potential Buyers For Yahoo’s Internet Businessr


4 4 4 9
  • (Morton Fox)
    While you may not have checked your old Yahoo Mail account since before the recession, the Web 1.0 relic continues to exist. And now that Yahoo’s board may be looking to sell off the portion of the business that most people associate with the company, a number of potential buyers are licking their chops at getting some piece of the meal.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that among those who may be interested in devouring at least part of Yahoo’s soul are Verizon (which recently acquired the once-giant AOL), Time Inc. (which was once corporate kin to AOL), News Corp, and Barry Diller’s IAC/Interactive.

    Verizon didn’t buy AOL for its vestigial dial-up accounts that won’t go away, but for the company’s software that is used to buy ads across the web and to connect user identities across mobile and desktop platforms.

    Likewise, an acquisition of Yahoo — which would cost, at most, half of the $4.4 billion Verizon spent on AOL — would be about increasing Big V’s ad reach. Yahoo may no longer be the go-to Internet name it once was, but it does have a huge cache of registration data and e-mail addresses that could be coupled with Verizon’s existing consumer data (from wireless and wireline customers) and the AOL ad tech.

    But as the Journal points out, Yahoo’s current ad-selling business is in the sagging market of online banner ads — a form of marketing that has been shown time and again to simply not work. Facebook and Google have both passed Yahoo in importance in the online ad world. In just the last year, Yahoo’s shar of the market has dropped from 5.1% to 4.4%.

    Other potential buyers for at least some portion of Yahoo’s corpse could include Comcast, the Walt Disney Company, or AT&T.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uAT&T Exec Claims Net Neutrality Delayed “A Bunch Of Stuff”r


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart)
    Tomorrow, the FCC will square off in court against the telecom industry over the recently enacted Open Internet order (aka “net neutrality), which allows the government to regulate broadband in a way similar to its oversight of telephone lines. AT&T, which has sued the government over the neutrality rules, is now making vague claims that the FCC’s actions caused it to hold off on releasing a “bunch of stuff.”

    Those are actual words spoken by a highly paid executive, AT&T Senior VP Bob Quinn, at a symposium earlier this week.

    “Since the Open Internet order came out we’ve had weekly calls with the business units and literally 15 lawyers who are all trying to figure out whether that stuff we’ve invested in… would be a violation of the order,” Quinn told the audience, according to Politico. “We’ve had to shelve a bunch of stuff because we’ve got to wait and see.”

    What that “stuff” is, we don’t know, though Quinn did apparently say that AT&T couldn’t have been first out of the gate with something similar to T-Mobile’s Binge On offer that doesn’t charge users for accessing video streams from certain providers. According to Politico, he said the company was unsure how the FCC would respond.

    But AT&T had already been offering something similar long before the new neutrality order was even a glint in FCC Chair Tom Wheeler’s eye. Back in Jan. 2014, weeks before a federal appeals court gutted the original 2010 Open Internet order, AT&T launched “Sponsored Data” — a program through which content companies could subsidize AT&T users’ wireless data.

    At the time, there was no consensus on whether Sponsored Data meshed with the 2010 neutrality rules’ ban on unfairly prioritizing access to specific content providers — and people are still debating it, though FCC Chair Wheeler recently made it clear that he not only thinks these sorts of arrangement can be okay under the Open Internet order, but that they are “highly innovative and highly competitive.”

    Even as the old neutrality rules were left bleeding by the side of the information superhighway and new ones were drafted to replace them, AT&T has continued with its Sponsored Data program, which raises a question about whether Quinn’s claim is genuine or puffery for an anti-regulation audience.

    Beyond the issue of sponsored data and zero ratings, AT&T’s claims that the neutrality order would kill investment and harm innovation are also not evident in the company’s actions.

    AT&T has begun tests on Wireless Local Loop technology intended to provide quality fixed wireless broadband services to millions of rural customers. Though this was something AT&T said it would do if it was allowed to acquire AT&T, the deployment of WLL service is not a regulatory condition of that deal, meaning the company could have delayed its rollout if neutrality were the true crippling, bureaucratic nightmare AT&T makes it out to be.

    Likewise, no law or regulation is forcing AT&T to invest billions in expanding its high-speed Gigapower fiberoptic service, which is now in more than a dozen markets around the country with on-the-record plans for further expansion.

    The company recently told employees that it will be spending even more money rolling out its next-gen pay-TV service and rebranding both its existing DirecTV and U-Verse products under the new AT&T Entertainment brand.

    According to the company’s most recent quarterly financials, AT&T’s capital expenditures were $5.3 billion for the third quarter of 2015, a year-over-year increase of $100 million, indicating that the company is still spending money like it used to.

    For all AT&T’s woe-is-us wailing, investors don’t seem to be worried. In the months since the Open Internet order was enacted, the company’s share price has effectively remained flat.

    [via Ars Technica]



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uUber, Lyft Given Final Approval To Stay In Portland After City Council Voter


4 4 4 9
  • (reynermedia)
    What a difference a year makes: it’s been almost 12 months since Uber and officials in Portland, OR agreed to work on new rules together to allow the company to operate in the city, and now, those rules have finally been approved, giving ride-hailing services the go-ahead to do their thing.

    The two sides got off to a bad start when Uber entered the Portland market in early December 2014 without so much as a “how do you do?” to the local government. Portland sued the service, before agreeing to talk it out and work on writing new regulations for ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft.

    After three months of staying out of Portland, Uber and Lyft were allowed to ply their trade in the city on a temporary basis starting in April, while both sides came to terms over final regulations. Portland’s city council voted on the rules governing Transportation Network Companies, or TNCs on Wednesday, passing the regulations with a 3-2 vote, reports OregonLive.com.

    The new rules allow ride-hailing companies to provide two tiers of insurance: less coverage when they’re signed into the app, and additional coverage coming into effect as soon as a driver connects with a passenger. Taxis are usually covered by insurance policies that have the same level of coverage regardless of whether a passenger is in the car.

    It wasn’t smooth sailing during the voting process, however, with some council members speaking out against those who voted for the rules, saying they were letting Uber and Lyft off the hook in regards to insurance coverage.

    “I am baffled as to why any of you would consider your own life or that of the person you love most in the world to max-out at 50 thousand dollars,” said Commissioner Amanda Fritz, referring to the per-person coverage required for death and injury during the first period. She wanted the city to require Uber and Lyft to provide more coverage to drivers while they’re on-duty.

    The insurance issue might not be over, noted Commissioner Novick, who said it’s still under consideration. He wants to ask state lawmakers to pass tougher statewide insurance regulations for TNCs.

    “I don’t know that we’ve got the insurance issue quite right, and expect to take that up again in the coming months,” Novick told KGW.com (warning: autoplay video at that link). “If you’re going to pick a fight with a 50 billion dollar company with a history of being belligerent, you should look around for some allies.”

    Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Dan Saltzman also voted for the new rules along with Novick, while Commissioner Nick Fish voted against them.

    “I think there’s been an effort to level the playing field as much as possible between (ride-hailing companies) and taxi companies, and I think that’s a good direction to go in,” Saltzman said. “I look at this as a new reality.”

    With narrow vote, Uber and Lyft secure their place in Portland [OregonLive.com]
    Uber, Lyft will continue operating in Portland [KGW.com]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist