вторник, 8 декабря 2015 г.

uAmazon Adding Starz, Showtime, A Bunch Of Other Tiny Streaming Services As Add-Ons To Prime Videor


4 4 4 9
  • Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 11.28.40 AMAs it was rumored, so it has now come to pass: starting today, a whole host of extra streaming channels are available for Amazon Prime subscribers to add to their plans.

    There’s still no HBO Now or Netflix available through the online retailer; most of the services available for add-on are smaller, niche platforms like QelloConcerts, Lifetime Movie Club, or Comedy Central Stand-Up Plus. The highest-profile networks available are the streaming versions of premium channels Starz and Showtime, each of which will go for $9 per month through Amazon.

    Hulu also offers Showtime for $9, but back in July Starz’s CEO said the network wasn’t interested in providing an option to non-cable-subscribers just yet. He did, however, leave open the option for the network to sign exactly this kind of online distribution deal. And clearly, the time to change that tune has come.

    This is good news for those of us who perhaps only got through the first half of Outlander‘s first season during the last time we had access to Starz, and now can finally take a day off to finish the binge. Such as.

    [via Re/Code]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uMultiple McDonald’s Locations Forced To Close After Prank Callers Convince Workers To Test Fire Systemr


4 4 4 9
  • (Morton Fox)

    When I think of prank calls, I conjure up images of teenage girls huddled around their clear plastic phones, calling boys in their class and hanging up. You know, harmless fun. But sometimes prank calls can turn into something bigger, and even potentially dangerous: three McDonald’s restaurants in Oregon shut down over the weekend after a caller convinced employees to activate fire suppression systems, spewing chemicals over kitchen appliances.

    The East Oregonian reports that five McDonald’s locations were targeted on Sunday by an unscrupulous caller claiming to be a representative for a fire protection equipment company that remotely monitored the fire suppression systems at each restaurant.

    State fire officials say that the prankster was able to convince employees at three of the restaurants to test the fire suppression systems.

    Once the systems were activated, a cascade of “wet chemical extinguishing agent” – used to smother grease fires – covered the deep fryers and other kitchen equipment, authorities tell the East Oregonian.

    “After staff activated the systems, then whoever it was on the phone let them know it was a prank,” Deputy state fire marshal Scott Goff said, noting that the fire suppression systems are not remotely controlled or monitored, and that testing must be done on site.

    Although the chemicals didn’t get all over the restaurant, they did cause quite a mess, leading the locations to shut their doors temporarily. Two of the restaurants reopened on Monday, while the third was closed until Tuesday.

    Fire officials reminded employees at the restaurant and other businesses that fire agencies will never call individuals to have them test systems.

    “We will personally visit you — a fire marshal, chief or personnel will arrive to test the system,” he said.

    Prank calls create mischief for local McDonald’s restaurants [East Oregonian]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uEavesdropping Barbie Brings Home The Win For Worst Toy Of The Yearr


4 4 4 9
  • barbieHere’s to hoping Hello Barbie has cleared off a spot in the Dream Home’s trophy case for a dubious honor: the eavesdropping doll that got privacy advocates talking — and not in a good way — has topped all other nominees for Worst Toy of The Year and will be taking home the win.

    The folks at Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood have crowned Hello Barbie the worst of all on their annual list of TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young children) Award nominees, an award handed out to the year’s most crass and questionable toys.

    Hello Barbie came under fire for not only talking with your child, but for recording what your young one would then say back to it, and passing those recordings on to a third party “to perform, test or improve speech recognition technology and artificial intelligence algorithms, or for other research and development and data analysis purposes.”

    “In a year full of jaw-droppingly bad toys, Hello Barbie deserves the TOADY as worst of the worst,” said CCFC’s Executive Director Josh Golin. “It’s the perfect storm of a terrible toy, and threatens children’s privacy, wellbeing, and creativity.”

    Hello Barbie dominated the competition, said CCFC, receiving more votes than the other five nominees (more on them here). Final results:

    • Hello Barbie, 57% of votes
    • Brands We Know book series, 14.5%
    • Bratz #Selfie Stick with Doll, 13.6%
    • Nerf Rebelle Charmed Dauntless Blaster, 8.6%
    • Sky Viper Video Drone by Skyrocket Toys 3.8%
    • Tube Heroes Collector Pack, 2.2%

    Last year’s winner was a co-branded Baby First/AT&T U-Verse iPad app that introduced infants to the whole “stare at the glowing screen” concept as early as possible.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uUnited Airlines Offers On-Time Guarantee For Corporate Travelers, Probably Won’t Have To Actually Pay Anythingr


4 4 4 9
  • (Adam Fagen)

    With accusations that airlines have padded flight schedules to improve on-time performance stats still fresh, one carrier is hoping to prove it’s all about valuing your time — as long as you’re a big corporate client. United Airlines launched a new reliability guarantee for some business travelers, promising to get them to their destination on-time or it will provide them with credits for upgrades and fees. 

    Bloomberg reports that United’s so-called “global performance commitment” is the airline’s way of attracting more corporate travelers and showing that it’s conscientious of their time.

    The program, which will cover domestic, international and regional flights starting next year, offers travelers credits if a flight fails to arrive before or right at the scheduled time.

    In the past, United has struggled to meet on-time marks. Last year, the airline ranked 10th out of 13 carriers when it came to on-time arrivals, but in recent months it has jumped to the fifth spot, Bloomberg reports.

    The credits can only be used for ancillary fees and upgrades. For example, a traveler can upgrade to Economy Plus seating, get out of change fees and other similar charges.

    While the program might seem pretty cut-and-dry, it comes with several limitations: it’s only available to United’s bigger corporate customers and is tied to how much business that company gives the airline.

    United’s senior vice president of worldwide sales, Dave Hilfman, estimates that the likelihood the carrier will have to pay anything is “slim to none.”

    Still, he says that the airline’s bigger corporate customers will find the program has “every bit of as much value as if they were offsetting fares.”

    The program is similar to one launched by Delta earlier this year. That guarantee offers business customers credits if its on-time rate dips below both United and American Airlines.

    If both — not one or the other — American and United beat Delta’s on-time and completion rates for a year, Delta will award travel credits of $1,000 to $250,000 to businesses with a contract. The amount of credits offered will vary depending on those who suffer the most delays and cancellations.

    However, as with United’s program, the likelihood that the carrier will actually pay-up is minuscule: the program doesn’t take into account international flights or regional affiliates, and United and American would have to significantly up their game to outdo Delta.

    Still, officials with Delta tell Bloomberg the reception of the program has been “overwhelmingly positive.”

    United Airlines Answers Delta in Offering Reliability Guarantee [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uParamount, Movie Theaters Sharing A Piece Of The Revenue Pie With Unusually Early Digital Releaser


4 4 4 9
  • You can't run from the future of digital releases.

    Look around you — notice anything different? Probably not, but big change could be underfoot, at least in the cinematic realm: Paramount Studios is trying something new, releasing Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse digitally — only 39 days after its theatrical release.

    That’s a much shorter window than the 90-day rule studios and theaters traditionally stick to, and it took a joint effort between those two sides to whittle that time down in this case: back in July, Paramount announced that it would be teaming up with theater chains like AMC and Cineplex to release two movies to home video earlier than usual. How’d they get theaters to agree? By offering to share revenue from digital sales with them.

    That’s bring us to today, when Scouts Guide debuts on digital platforms for sale and rental and Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension will go digital on Dec. 15, a mere 47 days after its theatrical release.

    There are a few winners in this equation, as Forbes points out:

    Paramount doesn’t have to spend marketing dollars in a few months to remind everyone about movies that, by then, will have been out of theaters for a while and it and other studios will get to determine the optimal time to release movies digitally.

    Theaters will still grab those fans who can’t wait, but then will make some extra money on digital releases once the initial box office rush is over.

    Consumers will be able to watch movies at home and on mobile devices earlier. It unhinges the death grip theaters have on that release window, meaning studios can base digital releases on consumer demand instead of when they can do it without theaters getting mad and cutting off their access to distribution.

    • And there’s always the chance for cross-promotion that benefits everyone — like a discount code for a digital copy printed on the movie ticket when you go see a film in the theater. The studio gets money from the digital purchase, theaters still get your butt in a seat and you get to watch the movie at your leisure, for a discount.

    Of course, where there are winners, there are also losers: pirates may have less to offer as fewer people are as tempted, perhaps, to commit a crime and illegally access content when they know they won’t have to wait as long for it as they did in the past. DVD sales may also take a hit, as they’re lagging behind digital platforms when it comes to releasing new movies.

    Though only AMC and Cineplex are included in this particular deal, it’s very like that other theaters — and other studios and their parent companies — will jump on the bandwagon as well. We wouldn’t be surprised if that traditional 90-day waiting period becomes a thing of the past, industrywide.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uConsumer Advocates Ask Regulators To Investigate T-Mobile Over Advertising, Debt Collection Practicesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Mike Mozart)

    Those two-year mobile phone contracts we all signed for so long became a relic of the past pretty quickly over the last two years, with national providers all abandoning ship. T-Mobile moved to “contract freedom” almost two years ago now, and has since then continued to make a big deal over the fact that their users are neither locked into time-locked agreements nor face old-school high data overage fees.

    But all that “freedom” still comes with a pretty hefty price, a group of consumer advocates now argue, and isn’t exactly freedom at all.

    That group of organizations has filed complaints with the New York Attorney General’s office, as well as with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The advocates — including Public Citizen; the Consumer Federation of California; Change to Win, a group of labor unions that together represent more than 5 million workers; and several organizations that work to support the interests of minority groups — say that T-Mobile’s ads are misleading and that the carrier is, effectively, locking consumers in.

    In the complaint to the CFPB (PDF), the groups accuse T-Mobile’s “no contract” marketing of being “misleading because a customer’s cancellation of his wireless service before two years makes the amount remaining on the [Equipment Installment Plan] immediately due,” and because that fee is even larger than the early termination fees that old-style contracts would usually charge.

    Here’s the thing: mobile companies used to sell you an expensive phone, like a new iPhone or Samsung Galaxy model, up front for a steeply discounted, subsidized fee. You’d pay something like $200 out of pocket for a $700 phone, and it was yours… but you were locked into a two-year service contract with your carrier, and faced a hefty early termination fee for jumping ship before the contract expired.

    Now, technically, you don’t sign any service contracts. But with most providers you do still buy that expensive new phone without paying $600 or $700 up front. You just do it in a two-year installment plan, paying $20 or $25 per month over two years until the full cost of the device is paid off. And while you are free to jump from your carrier at any time without incurring an ETF, you do have to pay off the full balance of the phone price should you do so. Which can, depending at which point you go, still be on the order of several hundred dollars.

    According to a research report (PDF) the groups published, a whopping 91% of T-Mobile customers participate in the company’s installment purchase plan. While you can bring your own compatible device with you to T-Mobile instead of buying one on their installment plan, that’s clearly not the norm.

    Worse, the groups contend: not only do many consumers not necessarily realize that they are responsible for the balance on the EIP if they cancel, but also T-Mobile’s debt collection practices are abusive. The organizations collected nearly 1,300 consumer complaints, from 2013 to 2015, saying that T-Mobile gave little or no notice before referring debts to collections or that incorrect information was sent to those collections agencies.

    All of these things T-Mobile does add up to functionally the same effect as a two-year contract would, the complainants claim. Given that, they argue, T-Mobile’s advertising — which repeatedly repeats claims like “no annual service contract” and “no more 2-year service contract” — is misleading.

    The complaint to the CFPB argues that T-Mobile’s advertising is deceptive under the terms of the 2010 Dodd-Frank act because the EIP is a financial product of the type covered by that rule. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office is also investigating the complaints.

    In a statement, Susan Harley, a deputy director for Public Citizen, said that the report, “raises serious questions and should be seen by government agencies like the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the mission of which is to shield consumers from unfair, deceptive or abusive practices.”

    “These questions should not be ignored by government watchdog agencies,” Harley added. “This report should be a wake-up call to regulators and customers alike. It’s time to dig into these charges to make sure that T-Mobile’s more than 61 million cell customers are not being taken advantage of.”

    When USA Today reported about the complaint, T-Mobile CEO John Legere — never lacking in personality — fired back a tweet that “we stand by our ads,” and “we haven’t been accused of false advertising by any regulatory body.”



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uPep Boys Concedes That Icahn’s Offer May Be “Superior” To Bridgestone, Will Explore The Deal Furtherr


4 4 4 9
  • (Will)

    When Dollar General entered an unsolicited billion dollar bid for Family Dollar last year, the smaller company said thanks but no thanks. The latest merger-love triangle appears to be taking a different path: auto parts retailer Pep Boys seems to be mulling the idea of ditching its already agreed upon deal with Bridgestone in favor of more money from Auto Plus owner Icahn Enterprises. 

    Pep Boys said on Tuesday that the new offer constitutes a “superior proposal” under its terms with Bridgestone, giving the company ample opportunity to “further consider the Icahn proposal,” Business Insider reports.

    “The Board has not changed its recommendation with respect to the Bridgestone transaction, nor is it making any recommendation with respect to the Icahn proposal,” Pep Boys said in a statement on Tuesday.

    On Monday, Icahn Enterprises offered to pay $837 million ($15.50/share) for Manny, Moe and Jack, trumping Bridgestone’s $835 million ($15/share) bid made back in October.

    Pep Boys previously agreed to sell 800 retail locations to Bridgestone, which operates 2,200 tire and car service centers in the U.S. Bridgestone currently operates retail locations under the Firestone Complete Auto Care, Tires Plus, Hibdon Tires Plus and Wheel Works brand banners.

    “There can be no assurance that the Board will ultimately determine that the Icahn proposal is a Superior Proposal, that the terms of a transaction with Icahn will be the same as those reflected in its proposal or that any transaction with Icahn will be agreed to or consummated,” Pep Boys further cautioned of the new deal.

    While Pep Boys continues to mull the offer and its next steps, Icahn maintains that its proposition is the better.

    “We believe our proposal is clearly superior to the… Bridgestone transaction and that our financial wherewithal to close expeditiously is indisputable,” Icahn Enterprises wrote in a letter to Pep Boys on Monday, no doubt throwing a bit of shade Bridgestone’s way.

    Carl Icahn has a shot at upending the Pep Boys takeover [Business Insider]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist