Pontiac Silverdome Sells For Only $583,000. It cost 55.7 Mill to make 35 years ago

Pontiac Silverdome Sells For Only $583,000 [Recession Watch]: "

35 years ago, taxpayers paid $55.7 million to build the Pontiac Silverdome, former home of the Detroit Lions. The city of Pontiac has been itching to be free of the stadium's $1.5 million umaintenence bill, so it sold the property at auction. For $583,000.

The winning bidder is an unknown Canadian company that apparently wants to bring a soccer team to the Detroit area.

From the Detroit News:

"We had hoped it would have brought more, but now the city can be freed of its upkeep and get it back on the tax rolls," Leeb said. Pontiac Mayor Clarence Phillips said he was "disappointed" but knew the city had to shed the costly structure. Councilman Everett Seay said he expects someone — possibly a prospective buyer turned down in recent years — to file a lawsuit to block the sale.

'The citizens of Pontiac deserve better,' Seay said. 'This is pennies on the dollar (of what it cost). It goes to show how bad times are ... Worse, we don't even know who bought it.'

The company, which Leeb described only as a Toronto-based group of real estate investors and a 'family-run business,' was one of four bidders considered during an auction at the Marriott Hotel. Others bidders were not identified and most left without talking to reporters.

It's too bad nobody told us they were accepting bids. Then again, Consumerist doesn't really believe in dome blogging.

Silverdome sale price disappoints [Detroit News]
(Photo:MRBECK)

"

88 Big Sites Earning Millions From Webloyalty Scam [Webloyalty]

88 Big Sites Earning Millions From Webloyalty Scam [Webloyalty]: "

88 websites, a good number pretty big name sites, that earned millions, some in excess of $10 million, as partners in the infamous Webloyalty consumer ripoff. Pizza Hut? Say it ain't so.

Webloyalty is that annoying thing that pops up when you buy movie tickets that says you can get $10 off your next purchase just by entering your email address. By clicking yes, you actually give permission for the website you're on to pass your credit card information on to Webloyalty, and they start billing you $9 a month for a useless 'discount buyers club' and the rebate is hardly ever paid.

The info below comes from a report Sentator Rockefeller released in advance of the hearing he's convening today to investigate aggressive online sales tactics.

In a statement, he said, ''After six months, this Committee has found that the companies we are investigating have figured out very clever ways to manipulate consumers' buying habits so they can make a quick buck. American consumers have been complaining for years about these misleading practices and asking for answers – and rightly so,' said Chairman Rockefeller. 'Millions of Americans are getting hit with these mystery charges every month – we have to do all we can to protect the hard working families relying on us to look out for their wallets and well-being'

PARTNERS PAID OVER $10 MILLION

1-800-Flowers.com
Buy.com
Classmates.com
Columbia House
Confi-Check
Expedia/Hotels.com
Fandango
FTD
Hotwire
InQ
Intelius
MovieTickets.com
Orbitz
Priceline
Redcats USA
Shutterfly
Travelocity
US Airways
VistaPrint

PARTNERS PAID BETWEEN $1-10 MILLION

1-800 PetMeds
Adteractiv
Airtran Airways
Allegiant Air
Allposters.com
American Greetings
Auto Parts
Avon
Barnes & Noble
Bizrate.com
Bookspan
Boston Apparel Group
BuySeasons/Celebrate Express
Campusfood.com
Cendant Intercompany Agreements
Channel Advisor
Cheap Tickets
Choice Hotels
CollectionsEtc.com
Continental Airlines
Currents USA (123 Prints)
Custom Direct
Digital River
Dr. Leonard's
Drugstore
eHarmony
eTix
eToys
Fareportal
FragranceNet
From You Flowers
FTD Florists Online
Gamestop/EBgames
Gevalia
Haband
Half.com
Hanover Direct
Hertz
HiSpeed Media
Infinity Resources
J.C. Whitney
Joann.com
Lillian Vernon
Live Nation
Marketworks
Miles Kimball
Musicnotes
MyLife.com
MyPoints
Pizza Hut
Potpourri
Restaurants.com
Riverdeep
Shoebuy
Simplexity
Spirit Airlines
Suresource/Americart
Thompson Group
Tiger Direct
TimeLife
True.com
True Credit (True Link)
Upsellit.com
US Search
Victoria's Secret
Vitacost
WayPort
West
Yahoo

Even though there are disclaimers and disclosures displayed on the websites before you click yes, most people think they are clicking for a free movie ticket or some such deal. Most people are trained that if you're going to make a purchase online, you have to enter a credit card. They don't expect this information pass on. Webloyalty knows what the average user does, and deliberately does the opposite, to great profit for it and its partners.

If you do find Webloyalty charging you on your credit card, it's pretty easy to call them up and ask them to refund all the charges.

One way to avoid getting ripped off like this when shopping online is to use a credit card that lets you use virtual or disposable account numbers, which are credit card numbers that are generated on-demand and can be used only once but they charge to your regular account.

[via Tech Crunch] (Thanks to Ivan!) (Photo: me and the sysop)

"

Verizon's Response To AT&T's Lawsuit: "The Truth Hurts" [There's A Map For That]

Verizon's Response To AT&T's Lawsuit: "The Truth Hurts" [There's A Map For That]: "

Awhile back AT&T sued Verizon over their "There's a Map For That' advertisements, claiming that the maps were misleading because the empty areas on the maps represented different things. Now Verizon has responded to the lawsuit with some fightin' words.

From the lawsuit:

AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon's "There's A Map For That" advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon's ads are true and the truth hurts.

For well over a year, the battle lines in wireless communications have been drawn around the "3G" (third generation) wireless data capabilities of each carrier, as measured by coverage, speed, and reliability. In recent years wireless carriers have upgraded their first and second-generation networks (capable of transmitting voice calls and limited data services) to 3G, enabling far higher transmission speed and therefore a far broader range of data products and services, such as faster music and video downloads, high-resolution games, and other software applications. Verizon Wireless has invested billions of dollars since 2004 upgrading nearly its entire network across the continental United States and Hawaii to 3G, and today covers five times more of the United States than AT&T's 3G network.

Despite the far smaller size of its 3G network, AT&T has spent tens of millions of dollars making its 3G network, which it dubs the "Nation's Fastest 3G Network," the centerpiece of its national advertising since at least the summer of 2008. AT&T now is attempting to silence Verizon's ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T's 3G network as compared to Verizon's own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison.

Damn. What now AT&T?

Read the full response here. (PDF)

"

Dear God: Comcast To Consider Partnering With Ticketmaster [Hideous Abominations]

Dear God: Comcast To Consider Partnering With Ticketmaster [Hideous Abominations]: "

When you read about the proposed Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger, you might have thought to yourself, 'Sure, this would be a merger between the world's largest ticketing company and the largest concert promoter, but I think it could be more horrifying.' Comcast apparently agrees, as they're considering getting in on the merger.

Bloomberg News has the story from two anonymous sources familiar with the talks. Although nobody at Comcast, Ticketmaster, or the Justice Department is commenting, the speculation is that Comcast would partner with Ticketmaster in exchange for revenues from ticketing software and client contracts.

The prospect of having to deal with Comcast and Ticketmaster to see a concert or sporting event is upsetting enough, but the sickest part of this story is that the Comcast partnership is apparently being considered to alleviate antitrust concerns that the Justice Department might have about the Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger.

We'll keep you updated on any future developments (maybe AT&T or MLB would like to be a part of this?)

Comcast Said to Work with Ticketmaster, Live Nation [Bloomberg]
(Photo: The Searcher)

"

Federal Reserve Proposes Rules On Gift Cards [Gift Cards]

Federal Reserve Proposes Rules On Gift Cards [Gift Cards]: "

Here's your chance to sound off on another consumer protection issue. In accordance with the CARD Act, today the Federal Reserve proposed new rules that would protect consumers from fees and expiration dates on gift cards, and they'll soon be accepting comments on the rules.

Here's what the rules would enforce:

- Cards can't expire for at least 5 years from date of purchase.
- Monthly fees can't be applied until the card has been inactive for one year.
- Only one fee can be charged per month.

Feel free to submit comments on the proposed rules. You have to wait until they've been published in the Federal Register, the daily government paper that that prints everything going on in the government. The Federal Reserve doesn't have a date for when that happens, only that it will be soon. Once they're published, you have 30 days to submit feedback.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [TBD].

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1377, by any of the following methods:

Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include the docket number in the
subject line of the message.

FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102

Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

If you want to be the first to know when the proposed rules will be published (or more realistically, if you want to be one of the only people to know), you can subscribe to a daily email that lists what's in the Federal Register that day. Visit the Government Printing Office's LISTSERV and click the 'Online mailing list archives' link, then on the next screen click the third link, 'FEDREGTOC-L - Federal Register Table of Contents.'

'Federal Reserve proposes rules to restrict fees and expiration dates on gift cards' [Federal Reserve]
'Fed proposes new rules to protect users from fees' [Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: Mr. Thomas)

"

DirecTV Marketer Steals DISH Customers Via 800 Number Squatting [Consumerist Hotline]

DirecTV Marketer Steals DISH Customers Via 800 Number Squatting [Consumerist Hotline]: "

A sneaky DirecTV marketer has bought up toll-free numbers that end in 'DISH.' When DISH Network customers call up, the operators make it sound like they're from Dish and offering them a free service upgrade, but in reality, they're switching the service and slamming the Dish Network customer into a DirecTV service contract.

The real number for DISH is 800-333-3474, but this company has bought 888-333-3474, and according to reports on 800 notes, several other 800, 888, 866 numbers that end with 'DISH.'

We first heard about it in a message left on our Consumerist hotline:

TRANSCRIPT: 'I had to authorize a new Dish receiver. The number on the screen said 1-800-333-DISH. I dialed 1-888-333-DISH. I got a guy that immediately asked for my name, phone number, address, email address, and talked about the new specials that he could give me for being such a loyal customer. I kind of just wanted my receiver authorized.

And he says, these are some great deals, and you should get rewarded for being such a loyal customer since you've been with Dish Network so long.

Then he says, 'if I send you these new boxes out, keep in mind that these are direct Tv boxes...'

It turns out that it was a DirecTV franchise that was capitalizing on people mistaking 1-800-333-DISH for 1-888-333-DISH. They're not telling people who they are upfront and they're getting a bunch of information when you're thinking that you're talking to a company that you already trust and have an account with. So it really ticked me off. It's totally uncool. Hopefully you can print this and people won't get confused anymore.' :END TRANSCRIPT

Very clever. If you accidentally sign up for this, best thing to do is a charegback. Unsurprisingly, the folks on 800 notes say the sleazy DirecTV marketers are not that nice about giving refunds.

Got a tip you want to leave by phone? Call 347-422-6695 and leave us a message.

(Photo: TenSafeFrogs)

"

Disney Removes Closed Captioning From "Up" Rental Release [Pixar]

Disney Removes Closed Captioning From "Up" Rental Release [Pixar]: "

Imagine you're deaf or hard of hearing, and put off watching Pixar's 'Up' until the DVD release. You rent the DVD from Netflix, Redbox, or Blockbuster, and the box or Web listing promises captions. But when you settle in to watch the movie, you discover that there are no captions to be found. Not in any language.

One reader posted his story on Livejournal:

So I rented the movie Up off of Netflix. Came in the day it was released in stores. Stick the disc into my player...

No closed captions.

Flick through the subtitle menu on the DVD player...

No subtitles either.

Apparently, as I'm gathering from some Twitter searches, Disney (who handles the distribution of Pixar's movies) released a special bare-bones version of the DVD to major rental businesses- Netflix, Redbox, and Blockbuster are all confirmed- that not only lacks the bonus shorts from the retail DVD, but even lacks the closed-captioning. Which is, y'know, half the reason I rented the DVD in the first place rather than going to see it at the dollar theater.

FAIL, Disney. EPIC FAIL.

I'm going to be checking to see if my local indie rental store has a retail copy of the DVD; I've got confirmation that that version, at least, is captioned.

Seriously, Disney? What were you thinking?!

Apparently, a special rental market version of the DVD was produced, which lacks pretty much all of the special features.

Netflix, at least, doesn't promise English-language captions on their page for 'Up.' It lists the DVD's features as:

Other features:
Color; interactive menus; scene access.

Subtitles:
French, Spanish

However, readers claim that the rental version of the DVD lacks both the interactive menus and the foreign language subtitles.

We haven't confirmed this, but one Twitter user claims that a Disney customer service representative told him that the rental version lacks DVD bonus features for marketing reasons.

I called the Disney support phone # from their website (yay for WebCaptel!) When I told her why I was calling she said 'Yes, we know.' She went on to say that it was a marketing decision to remove all special features, apparently they saw SDH [subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing] as a special feature.

In other words, if you want the DVD extras, fancy menus, and captions, you'll have to buy the retail version of 'Up.' This makes sense from a marketing perspective, but isn't fair to those customers who use and need captions.

(Photo: [sic])

"

TSA bans snowglobes. TSA, meet Archimedes.

TSA bans snowglobes. TSA, meet Archimedes.: "The TSA says you can't carry a snow-globe onto a plane, even if it fits in your freedom baggie, because they can't measure how much liquid it contains, and therefore it must contain more than three oz of potential explosive, um, water.

TSA, meet Archimedes. He lived over 2,000 years ago and figured out how to calculate the volume of a object by measuring its displacement. If you actually believe that 3 oz is a magical high-danger threshold, please consider adding a delightful, hallucinatory element of science to your pseudoscience by putting an Archimedes tank at the checkpoint. It would be a lovely counterpoint to your other scientific tests, such as the ducking stool and the spirit-rattles.

'Snow globes are not permitted to be carried through security checkpoints,' said Transportation Security Administration spokesman Dwayne Baird.

The reason is that the globes contain liquids, and TSA rules say that only liquids, gels or aerosols in containers of three ounces or less are allowed through security in carry-on bags...

'I would think they would just say 'no,' because they can't really determine how many ounces are in there,' Baird said.

Snow globes? TSA will likely just say 'no'

(via MeFi)

"

Verizon Configures Phones So You Incur Erroenous Data Charges? (To The Tune Of $300 Million) [Verizon]

Verizon Configures Phones So You Incur Erroenous Data Charges? (To The Tune Of $300 Million) [Verizon]: "

If you have a Verizon phone, you've probably at one point accidentally hit a button that connects you to 'Get It Now' or 'Mobile Web.' Arg. And it's double-arg when it turns out that even if you cancel right away, you still get hit with a $1.99 1MB data charge. According to a tipster, this is totally on purpose.

A guy wrote in to Pogue's blog and said everyone at Verizon knows about these design flaws but no one will do anything about it, because it makes Verizon over $300 million a month. He said:

'The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I've had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I'm sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

'Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That's over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

'Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it-and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

'Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it's blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

'They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they're actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon's revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don't even notice this $1.99 on the bill.'

Sleazy.

Verizon: How Much Do You Charge Now? [NYT] (Thanks to John!)

"

FTC Files Contempt Charge Against BlueHippo For Continuing To Rip Off Customers [Scams]

FTC Files Contempt Charge Against BlueHippo For Continuing To Rip Off Customers [Scams]: "

Today the FTC lodged a contempt charge against scammy no-credit-needed electronics seller BlueHippo, saying that the company hasn't honored its prior agreement to stop scamming customers. BlueHippo agreed to pay back $3.5 million nearly two years ago to reimburse customers who never received the computers they pre-paid for, but the FTC says since then the company has sucked another $15 million out of customers.

BlueHippo has a history of not keeping promises. Here's what happened in February 2008:

According to the FTC's 2008 complaint, BlueHippo Funding, LLC and affiliate BlueHippo Capital, LLC offered to extend credit to consumers to finance purchases of personal computers and other consumer electronics with down payments of $99 to $124, and a year of weekly or bi-weekly payments ranging from $36 to $88. BlueHippo promised to deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments. But most consumers did not receive the computers they ordered in the time promised, even after they had made 13 weeks of payments, the Commission alleged. The Commission charged that BlueHippo's marketing tactics were deceptive, and violated the FTC Act and other federal credit statutes.

Remarkably, the company continued to sign up customers as quickly as it had before the settlement, and between April and December of 2008 it contracted with over 35,000 new customers.

Of those, only 2,477 customers met all the requirements to eventually get computers, but the FTC says that BlueHippo provided at most only one PC to an eligible customer.

The FTC complained again in April 2009, and starting then BlueHippo began to fulfill computer requests for 1,462 qualifying customers. But even then it took up to 6 months to deliver computers to customers, when it sold the service with a promise of delivery in 3-4 weeks. The remaining 1,015 who were elgible have still received nothing.

The FTC has asked the court to bar BlueHippo from making any more sales, and to force it to repay customers. The BlueHippo website is offline as of this afternoon.

'FTC Lodges Contempt Charge Against BlueHippo' [FTC]

"

Everything you want to know about the scary, secret copyright treaty

Everything you want to know about the scary, secret copyright treaty:

Here's a 20-minute, must-see lecture on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement -- the secret copyright treaty currently being negotiated, which stands to fatally wound all user-generated content sites from mailing lists to YouTube; which stands to criminalize kids for noncommercial file-sharing; which stands to put your internet connection in jeopardy if anyone in your house is accused of infringement, and much, much more.

The ACTA Threat: My Talk on Everything You Need To Know About ACTA, But Didn't Know To Ask

Previously:

• New ACTA copyright treaty dodges the UN, poor countries and ...


• Petition to Obama government to disclose secret copyright treaty ...


• Obama's transparency commitment makes secret copyright treaty ...


• More on secret copyright treaty: your kids could go to jail for ...


• EFF sues Obama administration for promised access to secret ...


• Meet the former Time Warner exec the US govt has put in charge of ...


• Petition to Obama government to disclose secret copyright treaty ...


• More on secret copyright treaty: your kids could go to jail for ...


• Leaked text of secret copyright treaty vs. bland bureaucratic ...

"

Is Bank Of America Of Trying To Skirt CARD Act With New Annual Fees? [Testing The Water]

Is Bank Of America Of Trying To Skirt CARD Act With New Annual Fees? [Testing The Water]: "

In a series of recent posts, WalletBlog has accused Bank of America of breaking the spirit of its 'no new fees' promise and of potentially breaking the law next year, when it announced it will introduce annual fees on some existing credit card accounts in 2010.

Here's the blog's argument for why Bank of America isn't honoring its promise to customers and to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). On October 6th the bank released a letter in which it pledged to stop re-pricing existing credit card accounts—but introducing an annual fee where none existed before sure sounds like re-pricing, doesn't it? BoA explained it like this: they only promised to not raise interest rates.

However, that's not true. WalletBlog points out that the bank made no such distinction in their October 6th letter. Here's the relevant excerpt:

'In light of the concerns expressed to us by our customers, Bank of America will not implement any change in terms (risk or economic based) re-pricing of consumer credit card accounts between now and the effective date of the CARD Act.'

That language doesn't draw any distinctions between types of re-pricing, so it's kind of weird to retroactively define the term as only relating to interest rates.

But this is a moot point because the letter only promises that they won't practice re-pricing between now and the implementation of the CARD Act. After that goes into effect in February 2010, the promise no longer applies. I don't know why BoA's representative bothered to misrepresent the language of the letter when he could just as easily have pointed out that it was nothing more than a temporary pledge—and mostly an empty once, since they had already re-priced many accounts in the month leading up to the letter.

As far as implementing fees after the CARD Act goes into effect, well, that's where WalletBlog says that BoA may end up in violation of the law. BoA argues that the CARD Act prohibits raising interest rates but says nothing about implementing annual fees, but WalletBlog points out that the language of the CARD Act is ambiguous, and thanks to a 1996 Supreme Court case involving Citibank, the FDIC considers the term 'interest' to include:

...among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient funds (NSF) fees, overlimit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees.

It sounds like BoA may be testing the boundaries of the CARD Act and seeing if it can get away with annual fees by arguing that they're not specifically prohibited.

Be sure to check out WalletBlog's full post on the matter.

'Bank of America Tries but Fails to Defend New Annual Fees' [WalletBlog]
'Bank of America Readies Itself to Break the Law' [WalletBlog]
(Photo: mrkathika)

Duke University official concerned that sex toy study will make students want to "just sit around and masturbate"

Duke University students: you should not ‘just sit around and masturbate’

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

A Duke University study on sex toys has raised the ire of the University’s Catholic Center director. But not because he’s worried about the 18-year-old participants who might be breaking vows of celibacy, and doing it with handcuffs and vibrators. Instead, Father Joe Vetter says he’s concerned that the study will encourage young women to “just sit around and masturbate” instead of hitting up singles night to track down their future husband.
The study, being conducted by a behavioral economist and student health workers, was advertised around the Duke campus for much of October. Researchers were interested in female attitudes towards sex and sexually-themed “toys” and paraphernalia. Women filled out a survey and took part in a one-hour meeting, where they were asked to view sex toys and discuss them with other participants. As incentive to donate their time, the women were all offered a gift bag, and discounts on the items – a sex-themed Tupperware party, if you will.
You’d think Father Vetter would be pleased: student health workers say they hope the study will shed light on whether sex toys can be a useful tool in curbing campus promiscuity. But no:

“I’m concerned about promiscuity also,” Vetter said. “And to be honest, I don’t have the solution. … My concern is these students are in this developmental phase, and I don’t think it’s a good developmental practice to just tell somebody to just sit around and masturbate. I don’t think that promotes relationships.”

Sit around and masturbate? Yes, that sounds exactly like what this study was suggesting: just load up on discounted vibrators, a Sade CD and some scented candles for your dorm room, girls. Is Vetter concerned that we’re all going to stop procreating once we realize that getting off is generally easier without male intervention? If he’s so convinced that sex toys can out-sex men, to the extent that women are just going to play solo from now on, maybe Vetter needs some couples counseling and a stack of helpful reading material.
The study is already completed, but Vetter still plans to protest, by speaking on the topic at mass this weekend. Unfortunately, he’ll probably be preaching to the converted, anti-sex-toy among us. I’m pretty sure the women from the study have – uh – other plans on Sunday morning.

Citibank To Charge Fees On Checking Accounts [Fees]

Citibank To Charge Fees On Checking Accounts [Fees]: "

If you're a Citibank customer who has one of the bank's two smaller checking account plans—the ones where the monthly fee is waived as long as you use direct deposit or their online bill payment—then maybe it's time to consider taking your business elsewhere. Starting in February, anyone with an average balance of less than $1500 will be assessed a monthly $7.50 service fee, reports the New York Post.

Penny-pinching Citibank will put the squeeze on small-fry customers, charging them up to $90 a year by demanding a fee every time their average monthly checking account balance sinks below $1,500.

Starting in February, Citibank will no longer automatically waive its $7.50 monthly fee for its 'EZ' and 'Access' checking-account holders who make either a direct deposit, or two bill payments online monthly.

A management consultant told the Post that if customers stay with Citibank even after they implement the new fee rule, it will send a signal to other banks that they can do the same with low-balance checking account customers. Hmm, maybe it's time to start looking around for a good credit union?

'Really Citi treatment' [New York Post] (Thanks to Kearas!)
(Photo: Mike McCaffrey)

"

MPAA Asks FCC For Control Of Your TV's Analog Outputs [Video On Demand]

MPAA Asks FCC For Control Of Your TV's Analog Outputs [Video On Demand]: "

The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets.

This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers and therefore make everyone happier.

But that's not what over a dozen public interest groups think, notes Home Media Magazine:

[Groups] including Public Knowledge, the Digital Freedom Campaign, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America and the Media Access Project, are fighting the MPAA over the request, saying it puts control of privately owned consumer electronics into the hands of the movie industry, hurts TiVo and Slingbox owners, and leaves out consumers who own TVs without digital connections.

'The MPAA has failed to provide a reason as to why the limited interests of its six member movie studios should be allowed to outweigh the interests of those consumers that will be forced to replace over 20 million television sets and countless other devices in order to view content that their current equipment is capable of displaying,' the Nov. 4 letter from the interest groups reads. 'Furthermore, granting the waiver effectively would allow MPAA member companies to control the types of connections and features offered to all U.S. consumers, forcing consumer electronics designers and manufacturers to agree to almost any consumer-unfriendly conditions just to display SOC content.'

Here's a video from Public Knowledge that addresses SOC. (Hey Public Knowledge guys, record your audio in a room with less background noise!)

'MPAA, Consumer Groups Battle Over FCC Waiver' [Home Media Magazine]
'MPAA Wants to Control TVs in Your Home; Consumer Groups Fight Back' [The Wrap]
Public Knowledge page on SOC [Public Knowledge]

Ebook license "agreements" are a ripoff

Ebook license "agreements" are a ripoff: "In today's Observer Business column, John Naughton discusses what a ripoff it is for ebook vendors to 'sell' you books with abusive, multi-thousand word 'license agreements,' pretending that because you bought your book over the network, it wasn't a sale, and so you don't get to own it. These 'licenses' aren't about upholding copyright (if they were, you could replace thousands of words of lawyerese with four simple words: 'Don't violate copyright law'). They're about overriding copyright -- which has all kinds of guarantees for the rights of book-owners -- with a private law that gives every advantage to the publisher or retailer, converting you from a noble reader to a wormy, contemptible licensor who doesn't deserve to own books.

The Kindle EULA is a good example. Section 3, which deals with 'Digital Content' (such as downloaded books), says that 'Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content.' In other words, you are forbidden to lend or sell the book you've just 'bought'. In real-world terms, you can't lend your copy of 1984 to a friend or donate it to the school jumble sale.

Under the subsection on 'Use of Digital Content', the Kindle EULA says: 'Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.'

Translation: you can't back up your electronic books on to any other device - which means that if your Kindle packs up, or if Amazon moves on to another technical standard, you're screwed: your entire digital library has effectively been vaporised. Then you look round your house and note the number of electronic devices that no longer work.

Kindle readers beware - big Amazon is watching you read 1984


"

Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge

Earlier this week the Toronto Star announced, among other changes, that it was planning to outsource some one hundred in-house, union editing jobs. In the press release issued by the union in the wake of the announcement, union chief Maureen Dawson explained that "Journalism is a collaborative effort, the product of a team of reporters, photographers and editors working in concert to produce the kind of activist agenda that has served Star readers and our community so well for so long...To remove a critical element of that work is to shortchange everyone who depends on it."
Now, one (apparent) editor at the Star has decided to show us all the benefits of collaboration. An extensively marked-up copy of Publisher John Cruickshank's internal memo announcing the changes was sent to Torontoist by a self-described "intermediary who was asked to send this for a friend who works at the Star" this morning; it's, allegedly, "the work of a Star editor."
Here's the whole thing:


:

Washinton Satate Reporter Actually Measures Noodles In Campbell's Soup [Nifty]

Reporter Actually Measures Noodles In Campbell's Soup [Nifty]: "

32' of noodles is about 10 yards, so a reporter from KING5 in Seattle decided to lay them out, end by end, starting at the 10 yard line of a fooball field, to see if he could score a noodley touchdown. We applaud this effort.

We have to say we're not surprised by the results. We trust that Campbell's understands chicken soup manufacturing.

Let Jesse Buy It: Noodles [KING 5] (Thanks,Cherise!)

"

Iowa Feline Catches Swine Flu [H1N1]

Iowa Feline Catches Swine Flu [H1N1]: "

When you're home sick, snuggling with a pet can have tremendous healing powers. 'Plus,' you might say to yourself, 'at least Fluffy can't catch this awful swine flu I have.' Well....not so fast. It's not common, but a cat in Iowa has been diagnosed with, and recovered from, swine flu.

The 13-year-old indoor cat in Iowa was brought to the Lloyd Veterinary Medical Center at Iowa State University's College of Veterinary Medicine, where it tested positive for the H1N1 virus. ...

'Two of the three members of the family that owns the pet had suffered from influenza-like illness before the cat became ill,' said IDPH Public Health Veterinarian, Dr. Ann Garvey. 'This is not completely unexpected, as other strains of influenza have been found in cats in the past.' Both the cat and its owners have recovered from their illnesses.

Perhaps this is the cue for pet stores across the country to set up displays of tiny paper masks and bottles of paw sanitizer.

Cat catches swine flu [Washington Post]
Protecting Pets from Illness [Iowa Department of Public Health]

(Photo: htby)

"

Walmart Goes Crazy On Couple Suspected Of Shoplifting [Walmart Is Your God Now]

Walmart Goes Crazy On Couple Suspected Of Shoplifting [Walmart Is Your God Now]: "

Walmart can try to spin itself as being on the side of good all it wants, but if it ever suspects you of shoplifting, you may find that you're powerless to fight back. In the case of a couple accused of shoplifting some Bic lighters in Niles, Illinois this past August, Walmart detained them, the police came and cuffed one of them, their two kids were taken to a security room, and—after a review of security footage proved the couple's innocence—they were banned for life from all Walmarts. To top it off, Walmart's legal team has sent the couple a letter asking to be reimbursed for 10 times the value of the lighters, even though the police determined no shoplifting had taken place.

(It's unclear whether the couple ever actually paid for the Bic lighters in question—the article only specifies that the footage shows they scanned the package of lighters but that the scanner didn't register it.)

The couple in question is gay and their sons are adopted, which may have introduced a whole new level of emotional reactions on both sides of the dispute. The men say their children told them that while they were being held in the security room, the security staff threatened the kids and 'had made disparaging remarks about Paolucci and Hitchcock's lifestyle.' It's not a stretch to imagine that such an attitude, if it existed, carried over into any face-to-face interactions. Meanwhile, the police who showed up and cuffed Paolucci, then forced the two men into the backs of different squad cars, claim that the men were causing a disturbance when they arrived at the scene.

Still, no amount of pro-gay or anti-gay outrage makes it okay for a retailer to place paying customers in such an abusive situation, especially when the retailer's own security footage—which was immediately available for review—shows that if there was any inventory issue it was due to a malfunction of the scanner. But Walmart can get away with it because it can afford to:

Asked if they intend to sue Wal-Mart, Paolucci said he and Hitchcock probably won't because other attorneys have advised them Wal-Mart historically 'plays hardball' and isn't prone to settle cases out of court.

'We could spend a couple million dollars to sue them,' Paolucci said.

But that doesn't mean there won't be court action. Paolucci and Hitchcock e-mailed The Tribune a copy of a letter from a law firm representing Wal-Mart seeking 10 times the retail price of the items the store still claims were shoplifted by Paolucci. The letter states the matter will be dropped if Paolucci submits the $158.40 payment.

Fortunately, the men seem to have enough money that they can afford to never shop at the discount retailer again, even if they weren't banned for life. If you're not part of a wealthy two-income family, though... well hopefully Walmart will look down favorably upon you when your post-checkout time comes, so long as you act contrite and respectful of their security team's authority.

(Oh yeah, now I remember why I don't want a Walmart anywhere near where I live.)

'Niles couple banned from Wal-Mart after dispute over BIC lighters' [South Bend Tribune] (Thanks to Shanon!)

RELATED
'Loomis Rent-A-Cops Have Shopper Cuffed, Hauled Away Over ATM Photo'
(Photo: Brave New Films)

United Says No Track Suits In First Class [Dress Codes]

United Says No Track Suits In First Class [Dress Codes]: "

How casual is too casual for an airplane's first class section? If you paid for first class, and a bald guy in a Puma running outfit sat down across the aisle from you, would you honestly feel short-changed? United seems to think it's inappropriate.

MyFox Atlanta DC says that Best Buy vice president Armando Alavarez's first class upgrade was revoked last week, after the gate agent saw he was wearing a Puma running outfit. He said he frequently checks his suits and wears more comfortable clothes for the flight. You can see by the photo or the video clip below that his Puma running outfit was in excellent shape.

For those who don't want to watch the video (are you sure? you'll miss Alvarez talking about his Puma running outfit!), MyFox DC says Alvarez wrote a letter to United to complain about having his upgrade revoked, but he hasn't heard back from them. The network says it contacted their customer service department three times but never heard back, either. I'm pretty sure you have to write a hit YouTube song to get United's attention these days, Alvarez; you might want to see if Best Buy can hold a United Hates Puma Running Suits sale or something.

'Man Denied First Class Seat on United' [MyFox Atlanta] (Thanks to Diasdiem!)

Hyundai Replaces Car Destroyed In BMW Parking Lot Attack [Above And Beyond]

Hyundai Replaces Car Destroyed In BMW Parking Lot Attack [Above And Beyond]: "

About a week ago, a woman tried to park her BMW X5 in a gym parking lot in Thornhill, Ontario. For some mysterious reason, she instead drove over two other cars and sat on top of them for a few seconds, like a big game cat savoring her kill. Then she drove off.

One of the demolished cars was a 2004 Hyundai Elantra that the owner had just finished paying off, and on Friday Hyundai gave him a new car.

Luckily the incident was caught on a security camera, so if you haven't seen it yet, here ya go:

The 62-year-old driver returned to the scene of the crime—she was a member of the gym—last week, where she was identified by an employee. The Globe and Mail writes, "She was identified when an Extreme Fitness staff member, whose own car had been crushed in the Oct. 22 incident, spotted a similar-looking SUV in the parking lot again Wednesday morning [October 28] and called police."

The Elantra owner, Todd Jamison, was surprised on Friday by a Hyundai representative in the parking lot:

...when colleagues called him into the office on a pretense, he found a shiny 2010 Hyundai Elantra in the lot along with a smiling Hyundai representative. ''We wanted to help the guy,' a Hyundai spokesman told TheStar.com. 'This was our random act of kindness.'

Either that, or it's the best viral advertising video for both BMW vehicles, and Hyundai customer service, that I've ever seen.

'VIDEO: Hyundai steps up to remedy world's worst parking job' [Autoblog] (Thanks to GearheadGeek!)
'Woman charged after parking escapade becomes viral sensation' [The Globe and Mail]
''Worst parking job' victim given car' [TheStar.com]

"

Goldman Secretly Bet On Housing Crash [Goldman Sachs]

Goldman Secretly Bet On Housing Crash [Goldman Sachs]: "

A 5-month investigation by McClatchy Newspapers has found that Goldman secretly bet on the housing crash, went out and pimped the dickens out of assets it knew were junk, and may have broken securities laws in doing so. McClatchy found that Goldman...

# Bought and converted into high-yield bonds tens of thousands of mortgages from subprime lenders that became the subjects of FBI investigations into whether they'd misled borrowers or exaggerated applicants' incomes to justify making hefty loans.

# Used offshore tax havens to shuffle its mortgage-backed securities to institutions worldwide, including European and Asian banks, often in secret deals run through the Cayman Islands, a British territory in the Caribbean that companies use to bypass U.S. disclosure requirements.

# Has dispatched lawyers across the country to repossess homes from bankrupt or financially struggling individuals, many of whom lacked sufficient credit or income but got subprime mortgages anyway because Wall Street made it easy for them to qualify.

# Was buoyed last fall by key federal bailout decisions, at least two of which involved then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Goldman chief executive whose staff at Treasury included several other Goldman alumni.

Whether this really constitutes fraud depends on who knew what, and when did they know it.

How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash [McClatchy] (Photo: C. Barr)

"

La Cabina "The Telephone Box"

I remember watching this 30 minute short when i was a little kid back in Cuba. This is one of those shorts that stay with you for a long time. Even if you dont understand Spanish, this is a great little short. Thanks to Jesus Diaz from Gizmodo for reminding me about this short movie.

This Is the Most Terrifying, Disturbing Movie You Will See Today [Retromodo]: "

My favorite actor died today, which makes me truly sad. He's Spanish, so you probably don't know him, even while he got an Emmy in 1972 for this short: The Telephone Box, a frightening tale with a shocking ending.

His name is José Luis López Vázquez. And even while he looks like the most common of the Spaniards, his talent and method knew no boundaries. I have it up there with Stewart, Newman, Brando, Lemmon, Guinness, Olivier, and the rest of greatest ever. Maybe it is because I'm too much of a movie freak, maybe it's because he's an important part of my life, but when I learnt that he died today, I instantly got teary. Still are writing these lines.

This short film, directed by Antonio Mercero, is one of this best jobs. A tale of a man who gets trapped in a telephone booth—nothing to do with the charming, decaying pay phones on 3rd Avenue—and can't go out, until something happens.

If you have 30 minutes free today, watch it. And make whatever you want out of it. A sharp criticism against modernism, the cold nature of society, the isolation of humans, the cruelty of society... or just an horror film that will surprise you at the end.

You won't regret it.

QVC Tricks Thousands Into Overpaying For Wii and Accessories [Bad Deals]

QVC Tricks Thousands Into Overpaying For Wii and Accessories [Bad Deals]: "

Reader Joe/Mordecai spotted an awful QVC deal on a Wii, a crappy game and some accessories.

He writes:

While channel surfing this evening I happened to skim by the QVC channel (around 6:50pm CST Sunday night) and noticed they were selling Wiis for the holiday season. The only thing that struck me as weird was the insane price they were selling this item.

Looking at the prices (on tv):

$349.00 + $13.97 S&H = $362.97

for the following items:

Nintendo Wii console retail (with Wii Sports)
Go Play Circus Star Games
Handgun Accessory
Golf Accessory
Tennis Accessory
Baseball Accessory
Steering Wheel

but seeing what these items are retail:

Nintendo Wii console: $199.00 MSRP
Go Play Circus Star Games: $14.99 (new at GameStop)
Wii sports pack (has all accessoies sans handgun accessory): $19.99 (new at GameStop)
Handgun Accessory: $5.99 (new at Sears)

All of these is $239.97 plus tax.

I wonder where they are getting this $140+ amount from. :|

Is QVC trying to cash in for the Christmas rush? All through out the show they were saying that the wii was going to be 'rare'. They were also saying that the Wii had true HD output which is totally untrue (unless 480p is considered HD). It just seemed unreal to me. Oh, and they sold about 2800+ of these.

To confirm what Joe/Mordecai suspects, the Wii is not in HD and Nintendo has repeatedly said the slumping-sales system will not be hard to come by this holiday season.

In the time since he sent the email, QVC got crrrrrazy and slashed the price to a low, low $318.20 before tax, shipping and handling. Only an $80 markup?! They're practically giving it away!

"

Capital One: Waive Your Rights, Get $10 Off Your Next Overlimit Fee! [Overlimit Fees]

Capital One: Waive Your Rights, Get $10 Off Your Next Overlimit Fee! [Overlimit Fees]: "

Everett says Capital One called him up and made him an offer. If he opted out of at least one of the consumer credit protections enacted by the CARD act, Capital One would drop the overlimit fees from $39 to $29! Woo!

Everett writes:

The person on the other end of the phone informed me, 'due to the changes made by [the Card Act], Capital One would have to deny any charges that goes over your credit limit starting in February of 2010. However if you want to maintain the ability to go over your credit limit you could opt to have your account stay the same as it is now. Your fee for going over your credit limit would be dropped to $29 (from $39) if you chose to do this.' I find it interesting that I can waive federal law applying to my credit card account for a potential savings of ten dollars. Comparing that to everything I'd lose out on, I decided to 'opt in' for the law to apply to me.

I was also told I could 'change my mind at any point, and give Capital One a call to let them know.'

Actually, this is brilliant. Some people don't need the government telling them they can't live outside their means and they should be able to claim a discount for being a more profitable credit card customer.

I am curious whether 'have your account stay the same as it is now' means that you would opt out of ALL of the CARD act provisions, or whether it's just the overlimit fee part.

(Photo: helgasms!)

"