lundi 3 mars 2014

Franken: Comcast’s Previous Behavior Doesn’t Bode Well For Time Warner Cable Deal

(Consumerist)

(Consumerist)



When Comcast finally goes before lawmakers and regulators to make its case for a merger with Time Warner Cable, it will likely promise a pile of concessions and policy changes in order to paint a rosier picture of the future. But Senator Al Franken of Minnesota is looking to the past, pointing out concerns with the cable company’s spotty track record.

In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (see full text below), Franken asks that the Commission “take into consideration Comcast’s past compliance with legal mandates,” including the conditions placed on Comcast’s 2010 acquisition of NBC Universal.


“To the extent that Comcast has a history of breaching its legal obligations to consumers, such history should be taken into account when evaluating Comcast’s proposal for future market expansion,” he writes.


Franken’s concerns with Comcast predate the NBC deal. He points to complaints from 2007 of Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Comcast claimed at the time that it was slowing down the traffic in order to more efficiently manage its network. But the FCC disagreed, writing that Comcast’s “discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and does not constitute reasonable network management.” The FCC also slapped Comcast on the wrist for not disclosing this practice transparently to its customers.


The Franken letter then moves on to Comcast’s requirement, as part of the NBC deal to, among other things, increase local news and public affairs programming produced and distributed by stations owned and operated by NBC and Telemundo.


But a May 2011 report from Free Press concluded that “the data reveal a dearth of local news and public affairs programming.”


The report also called out Comcast for allegedly inflating its stats for the amount of local news programming by including advertising time.


Another condition of the NBC merger was that Comcast provide and promote a reasonably priced standalone broadband service for consumers who don’t want TV service from Comcast.


But in June 2012 the FCC fined Comcast $800,000 after receiving numerous complaints that the affordable standalone service was not being promoted by the company and was not easy to find when looking for service packages.


With regard to TV content, Franken calls out Comcast for its potentially anticompetitive practice of “neighborhooding,” wherein a cable provider groups together similar channels. The Senator points out that Comcast-owned news stations like MSNBC and CNBC are frequently clustered together with other news channels, but some competitors are relegated to far ends of the channel guide. It took an FCC order — and more than two years — for Comcast to finally include Bloomberg in with the other news stations.


“Each of the incidents set forth above raises serious questions about Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable,” writes Franken. “Recent history, including Comcast’s adherence to the legal obligations it owes the public, should be taken into account when deciding whether to permit further consolidation in the cable and broadband markets.”


Below is the full text of the Franken letter to FCC Chair Wheeler:



The Honorable Tom Wheeler, Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554


Dear Chairman Wheeler,


On February 13, Comcast announced its plans to buy Time Warner Cable for approximately $45 billion, a proposal that would concentrate significant power in the hands of an already huge corporation. I am concerned that the proposed acquisition could result in higher prices, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.


In a previous letter, I urged you and your counterparts at the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to scrutinize Comcast’s proposal and to take all appropriate actions necessary to protect consumers. As part of that inquiry, I respectfully request that you take into consideration Comcast’s past compliance with legal mandates, including the terms and conditions the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) placed on Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal. To the extent that Comcast has a history of breaching its legal obligations to consumers, such history should be taken into account when evaluating Comcast’s proposal for future market expansion.


For example, your inquiry should include, though not be limited to, the following:


Net Neutrality. Around the summer of 2007, Comcast customers noticed problems sending and receiving content with BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer networking protocol that consumers used to watch videos, including content offered by CBS, Twentieth Century Fox, and Sports Illustrated. As the FCC later explained, peer-to-peer applications “have become a competitive threat to cable operators such as Comcast.” When customers’ complaints became widespread and public, Comcast “misleadingly disclaimed any responsibility for customers’ problems.”


However, when subsequent investigations revealed that Comcast was, in fact, selectively targeting and interfering with its prospective competitor, Comcast changed its argument, admitting that it degraded certain traffic but saying that such actions were necessary to manage the Comcast network. The FCC rejected Comcast’s argument and issued an Order against Comcast, stating: “[W]e conclude that the company’s discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and does not constitute reasonable network management. Moreover, Comcast’s failure to disclose the company’s practice to its customers has compounded the harm.” Although the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently vacated the FCC’s Order on statutory interpretation grounds, the underlying merits of the dispute and the conduct at issue remain relevant to the FCC’s consideration of Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable.


Localism. As a condition to its acquisition of NBC Universal, Comcast was required to implement certain localism policies. For example, Comcast was required to increase local news and public affairs programming produced and distributed by stations owned and operated by NBC and Telemundo. In May 2011, Free Press issued a report in which it analyzed Comcast’s first-quarter compliance with the localism requirements. Free Press concluded that “the data reveal a dearth of local news and public affairs programming,” particularly on Spanish-language networks. Perhaps most troubling, Free Press found that Comcast had overstated the amount of local news programming on its networks by counting advertising time toward the total programming time Comcast was required to make available to consumers. In evaluating Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable, the FCC should scrutinize whether these allegations have merit, and, if so, whether Comcast has taken sufficient corrective action in response.


Affordable Standalone Broadband. As a condition of its acquisition of NBC Universal, the FCC ordered Comcast to provide and promote a reasonably priced standalone broadband product for consumers who did not receive cable television service through Comcast. The condition was imposed to protect consumers who wished to decouple their cable television and broadband internet services – customers sometimes referred to as “cord cutters.” The condition also was intended to protect competition between online content providers, such as Netflix and YouTube, and cable-based content providers, such as Comcast.


Before long, consumers and competitors began to complain that Comcast was hiding its standalone broadband product, making it difficult for consumers to break away from their cable service. In June 2012, after an investigation into the matter, the FCC fined Comcast $800,000 for its allegedly anticompetitive and deceptive behavior, and it extended Comcast’s obligations under the Comcast-NBC Universal conditions.


Data Caps. In August 2012, Public Knowledge formally petitioned the FCC to take action in response to Comcast’s use of data caps, which allegedly violated net neutrality rules that Comcast was bound to follow, both under the FCC’s then-operative Open Internet Order and under the still-operative terms and conditions of the Comcast-NBC Universal deal. The Public Knowledge petition explained that Comcast had imposed limits on the amount of data its broadband customers could use each month, not unlike cellular telephone plans that limit the number of minutes a customer could use each month.


Comcast allegedly used the caps to stifle competition: data used to download or stream videos from Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and other rival content providers were counted against the cap, but videos from Comcast’s own video product were excluded from the cap. The effect of this arrangement allegedly was to increase the costs to consumers who used video products that competed with Comcast’s offerings. My understanding is that the FCC has not ruled on Public Knowledge’s petition. The FCC should examine this issue in connection with Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable.


Network Neighborhoods. When Comcast initiated its acquisition of NBC Universal in 2011, I sent the FCC a letter explaining that “this is a vertical merger that gives one company the ability to control both programming and the pipes that carry this programming.” In other words, Comcast, which already owned cable distribution channels, sought to acquire a significant share of the content that passed through those channels. I predicted that “Comcast would have strong incentives to favor its own programming and raise prices, thereby harming both consumers and competitors” and that Comcast would acquire the market power necessary to do just that.


Sure enough, Comcast subsequently undertook efforts to favor its own programming and harm its competitors. For example, Comcast kept MSNBC and CNBC – its newly acquired channels – in a neighborhood of news networks while relegating Bloomberg News to a distant and undesirable location in the Comcast lineup. As a result, customers flipping through the news channels likely would not come across Bloomberg News, but they would come across MSNBC and CNBC.


In June 2011, Bloomberg complained to the FCC. Comcast waged a protracted legal battle in response. Finally, in September 2013, the FCC issued an order compelling Comcast to stop its unfavorable treatment of Bloomberg News and comply with the conditions imposed on the Comcast-NBC Universal deal.


Each of the incidents set forth above raises serious questions about Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Simply put, the FCC does not write on a clean slate in this matter. Recent history, including Comcast’s adherence to the legal obligations it owes the public, should be taken into account when deciding whether to permit further consolidation in the cable and broadband markets.


I remain eager to work with you on this important issue.






Arby’s Finally Buys Its Hat Back From Pharrell For $44,000

Reunited and it feels sooo good.

Reunited and it feels sooo good (Arby’s/eBay).



When Pharrell Williams showed up on the red carpet for the Grammy’s last month wearing a tall, tan, oddly shaped hat, anyone who’s ever eaten a roast beef sandwich and curly fries had one thought, “That’s the Arby’s hat.”

Arby’s had that thought too, tweeting at the “Happy” recording artist, “Hey Pharrell, can we have our hat back?”



The fast-food chain and its beloved, floppy tan hat (by designer Vivienne Westwood, which means it’s fancy) have been reunited in social media bliss, as Pharrell — wearing a similar black, tall, oddly-shaped hat to perform at the Academy Awards last night, tweeted during the show that he was glad someone had bought the hat for charity.


It kind of sounds like he had no idea Arby’s was behind it as he thanked “whoever” bought it — but he’s sure as heck aware of it now:


“Thank you to whoever bought my Grammy hat on @eBay for $44,100. Your donation benefits From One Hand To AnOTHER.”


Arby’s replied, “.@Pharrell You’re welcome. We’re HAPPY to support a great cause & get our hat back. Good luck at the #Oscars tonight!



The $44,100 winning bid will benefit the charity From One Hand to Another, a group that helps kids learn through technology and the arts.


Money going to a good cause and Arby’s can claim it knows what the kids are talking about today — it’s a win-win. Except for anyone who actually wears that shamockery of a chapeau because come on, it’s just so silly.


You can follow MBQ on Twitter but don’t expect any hat pics: @marybethquirk





Disney Stops Providing Funding To Boy Scouts


For years, Disney’s Ears to You program has rewarded Disney employees’ volunteer efforts by donating money to various organizations for each volunteer hour worked. Until recently, various Boy Scout troop had benefited from these funds, but that appears to be put on hold because of Boy Scouts of America’s stance on homosexuality.

Though BSA very recently decided to reverse the ban on gay youth members, gay adults can still not volunteer as troop leaders.


While Disney has not made a public statement about its decision to withhold Ears to You funds to BSA, an organization called Scouts for Equality has posted a copy of a message sent from the BSA Central Florida Council Board President to local scout leaders and parents, stating that Walt Disney World employees are no longer receiving Ears to You funds for volunteer work with BSA.


“It has recently come to our attention that the grant program titled ‘Ears to You’ provided by Walt Disney World, to their employees, will be discontinued for Scouting volunteers,” reads the message. “[Walt Disney World] will no longer recognize volunteer hours with the Scout Council, District or Unit to receive grant funding.”


The letter says that BSA national leadership contacted Disney to see if a resolution could be reached, but “their views do not currently align with the BSA and they are choosing to discontinue this level of support.”


A handful of other large companies, including UPS, Merck, Caterpillar, and Intel, have previously called for a policy change at BSA.





Chase To Pay Out $300 Million Over Home Insurance Allegations


On Friday, a federal judge signed off on a settlement that will have JPMorgan Chase paying out at least $300 million to around 750,000 mortgage borrowers. It’s the first of what could be several large settlements with major lenders over the issue of forced-place insurance.

When you have a mortgage but your insurance lapses, your mortgage servicer will go out and get insurance for you. This forced-place insurance generally comes at a much higher rate and with less coverage than what a homeowner would get on her own.


The class-action lawsuit had alleged that the high rates on forced-place policies purchased by Chase weren’t just a matter of the insurance company, Assurant, charging more, but also of the bank receiving kickbacks and commissions. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed that Chase had a financial stake in seeing that homeowners were charged a higher premium.


According to the settlement, Chase can not earn commissions on forced-place insurance for six years. The bank says that it “stopped accepting commissions several years ago.”


Payments to affected mortgage borrowers will be equivalent to 12.5% of the net premium.


Similar lawsuits are pending against Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and HSBC.


Assurant has already settled a class-action for $14 million. Neither it nor Chase has admitted any wrongdoing.


Fees on forced-place insurance has come under fire in recent years, with some advocates and regulators concerned that charging homeowners a premium on something they are having trouble affording at a lower price is just pushing some further toward foreclosure.


The Federal Housing Finance Agency is reportedly considering a rule change that would prohibit lenders who earn commissions and fees from forced-place insurance from doing business with mortgage-backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


JPMorgan $300 Million Accord Over Kickback Claim Approved [Bloomberg]


JPMorgan Chase Class-Action Settlement Is Approved [AP]





Daughter’s Facebook Brag Costs Dad $80,000


You know all those times you read about lawsuit settlements where the financial terms are undisclosed? That silence isn’t a sign that no one wants to talk about how much they won or lost; it means that agreement will likely be nullified if people start blabbing about the money changing hands. And that includes a plaintiff’s teen daughter.

Just ask the Florida man who reached an $80,000 settlement in 2011 with the school where he’d previously been the headmaster, only to have his daughter ruin that victory with a bragging Facebook post.


Soon after hearing about her dad’s settlement, the daughter went online and shared with her 1,200 friends that her parents had won their case, and that the school “is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer.”


And just for good measure, she added, “SUCK IT.”


Of course, a number of those 1,200 friends still attended the very school she had told to “suck it,” so it didn’t take long for the school’s lawyers to hear about this semi-public boasting.


None of this sat well with the school, which immediately told the former headmaster that it wasn’t going to pay because he’d violated the nondisclosure agreement in the settlement.


A court later said the dad should get the money, but the school appealed that decision. Last week an appeals court sided with the school, ruling that the dad “violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do,” and that “His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.”


This is why I’m never having children.


Daughter’s Facebook Brag Costs Her Family $80,000 [Yahoo]

Daughter’s Facebook boast costs former Gulliver Prep headmaster $80,000 discrimination settlement [Miami Herald]





Driver Arrested Because A Short Rib Recipe Is Not A Vehicle Inspection Sticker

The fake, but tasty-sounding, inspection sticker compared to a sample of what an actual Massachusetts inspection sticker should look like.

The fake, but tasty-sounding, inspection sticker compared to a sample of what an actual Massachusetts inspection sticker should look like.



Most people don’t really like getting their cars inspected, and some people deliberately avoid getting an inspection because they know their vehicles won’t pass muster. Unfortunately for those folks, having a fake inspection sticker on the windshield can get them arrested.

Late Friday night, the police in Salisbury, MA, shared this Tweet showing a clipped short rib recipe that a driver had put in his window, presumably in the hope that no one would take a closer look:



According to Massachusetts state law, it’s a crime to “falsely make, steal, alter, forge or counterfeit” an inspection sticker. It’s a punishable offense that could earn a driver a fine of up to $500 and a maximum of five years in a state prison.


[via Boston.com]





Dick’s Sporting Goods Sues Modell’s CEO For Allegedly Posing As Dick’s VP

(top: analogkid281; bottom: Consumerist)

(top: analogkid281; bottom: consumerist)



When you think of corporate espionage and snooping, you probably think of big manufacturers — electronics, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, packaged food — trying to learn what the competition is working on. One industry that is unlikely to come to mind is retail sporting goods.

But a lawsuit recently filed by the folks at Dick’s Sporting Goods accuses Mitchell Modell, CEO of Modell’s Sporting Goods of posing as a Dick’s Vice President to gain access to the company’s secrets.


Modell, who had previously done the in-disguise thing at his own company for an episode of CBS’s Undercover Boss, allegedly presented himself a Sr. VP to employees at a Dick’s store in Princeton, NJ, on Feb. 8.


According to the suit, filed in a New Jersey state court in Mercer County, Modell told the store manager he had an appointment to meet Dick’s CEO Edward Stack at the store, then talked employees into giving him a tour of the employees-only portion of the store while chatting about things they should not have discussed with anyone outside the store, let alone the CEO of a competitor.


The complaint claims that during his visit, Modell asked store employees about Dick’s “ship from store” program that fulfills online orders using inventory from local stores.


Dick’s accuses Modell of civil conspiracy and trespass and is seeking unspecified damages and attorney fees. It also seeks an injunction barring Modell and his employees from entering the non-public areas of any Dick’s store, or posing as a Dick’s employee.


There’s nothing illegal about Modell visiting a Dick’s store. It’s good for a CEO to be on the ground to get a first-hand view of the competition. But it’s one thing to put on a pair of sunglasses and pretend you’re just another customer; it’s another to lie about your identity.


“I’ve been on tens of thousands of store visits by CEOs. This I’ve never seen,” one head of a national retail consulting firm told NorthJersey.com.


For those unfamiliar with Modell’s, it is one of the oldest sporting goods stores in the country, having been founded in 1889 in Manhattan. It runs about 150 stores, primarily in the New York City-Philadelphia corridor.


Dick’s has more than three times the number of locations as Modell’s and has been increasing its presence in areas that have long been dominated by Modell’s.


Modell’s CEO accused of undercover spying by rival sporting goods chain [NorthJersey.com]