Amazon Makes New Streaming Show Available Without Prime, With Ads

Amazon’s streaming video programming is just another way for the company to entice customers to sign up for Prime memberships, right? Who can resist free 2-day shipping and Alpha House? Yet the company’s new reality show, a fashion design competition called The Fashion Fund, is available to stream for free with ads as long as you have an Amazon account. Oh, and by the way, you can buy the finalists’ collections on Amazon.

The Fashion Fund already gave out awards to fresh and talented new designers before it had a reality show, and the show started out on the cable network Ovation. What’s new is that they can potentially reach everyone with an Amazon account, and the intense cross-promotion happening.

Amazon gets to attract people who are at least a bit interested in fashion to visit their site––where they have coincidentally just started to carry their own in-house fashion brands.

The Fashion Fund and the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund, meanwhile, get to put the contestants’ products on display on a special site on Amazon––what they refer to as a “a content-rich, dedicated retail experience” on the Amazon Fashion site. As far as we can tell, that means it has some big pictures. They are very nice pictures. You can click over to the clothes from the page where you stream the show, if you want to.

New episodes of the show will drop on Thursdays.

(via GeekWire)

Audit Finds NHTSA Investigators May Lack Training To Spot Defective Cars

Eight months after a Department of Transportation audit criticized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to hold automakers responsible for defects, a second audit is raising additional concerns about NHTSA’s ability to sniff out problem automobiles. 
The latest audit [PDF] from the DOT’s Office of Inspector General acknowledges that NHTSA has made strides over the last five years, but also points out that some necessary programs have not yet been implemented.

This includes a training program for investigators that would help them better spot safety risks in automobiles.

NHTSA investigators “may not be sufficiently trained to identify and investigate potential vehicle defects, or ensure that vehicle manufacturers take prompt and effective action to remediate issues,” the report found.

ODI also hasn’t conducted any post-training audits, despite committing to these audits in response to the recommendation, including evaluations of employee knowledge of course objectives, evaluations of training materials, and annual reviews of ODI’s training.

Additionally, the inspector general established that ODI investigators fail to properly document evidence such as consumer complaints and meetings with automakers that could better protect consumers for defects.

“Although ODI implemented the new procedure, it has not enforced the procedure or established mechanisms to promote compliance,” the report found. “For example, ODI has not required supervisors to review the case management system to verify that pre-investigative work is documented as required.”

As a result of these failures, the inspector general found roughly 42% issue evaluations filed in 2013 contained no document ion of pre-investigative work.

“ODI’s inconsistent application of this new procedure could result in relevant data being omitted from NHTSA’s preliminary evaluations of potential vehicle safety issues,” the report states.

A spokesperson for NHTSA tells the Wall Street Journal that the agency is working to implement the inspector general’s recommendations from 2011 and last year’s audit by June 30.

Those initiatives include a training program and better assessing compliance with internal policies

The agency has come under fire several times in recent years for inadequate policies and process when it comes to identifying defects.

In fact, both the 2011 audit and the June 2014 audit were instigated following major safety issues; unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles and General Motors’ ignition switch defect, respectively.

[via The Wall Street Journal]

Yes, There Really Is A Dentist’s Office In A Kmart In Miami

We learned about Kmart Dental in Florida from reader Jason, who sent us a link and noted that it “has got to be the oddest thing inside of a Kmart anywhere.” We don’t know whether it holds any strangeness records, but a dentist’s office inside a discount store is pretty unusual. We wondered how they ended up there, and whether Kmart dental offices were a common thing that we had just never heard of, so we called them up and asked.

The office is quite large, now employing six dentists, and the practice actually predates the Kmart itself. The founder and owner, Dr. Steven Aaron, opened the practice inside a Jefferson Ward store in 1982. Jefferson Ward was a discount chain owned by Montgomery Ward and based in Miami, and its stores were all either closed or were purchased by Bradlees in 1985.

Jefferson Ward was gone, but the dental office stayed. Kmart took over the building, and the dental office stayed where it was. “They built the Kmart around us,” the practice’s longtime receptionist explained to Consumerist.

After Kmart opened, the practice rebranded as Kmart Dental. It has never been owned by Kmart, but has permission to use the brand name and logo. The two businesses operate in symbiosis, though. Early on, Kmart’s customers wandered in to the dental practice. Today, Kmart, um, isn’t as popular as it was in 1985, and new patients come from elsewhere.

“Now more patients come from friends and family of our existing patients,” Dr. Aaron explained to Consumerist. Yet the Kmart store serves as a giant built-in waiting room for the practice, and patients can be paged in the store when it’s their turn or when their child’s appointment is over.

Having a dental practice in a store is rather convenient, as it turns out, which is why it’s surprising that there aren’t more of them. (It also helps that Kmart Dental keeps later hours than most dentists, staying open until 7:30 PM and opening on weekends.) Today, consumers may connect the idea of a dental practice in a discount store with the dental chains that sometimes have questionable patient care practices and that do business in strip malls.

That isn’t the case, though: Kmart Dental is a standard dental and orthodontic practice, and families who might have first visited a generation ago for the first time because they were regular Kmart shoppers have stayed with them, referring new patients.

The first impression that some potential patients get is amusing, though. Last year, a Kmart shopper captured the entrance on Instagram, showing its location next to the toy department and tagging the photo, “#igiveup,” “#onlyinmiami,” and “#bluelightspecial.”

Indeed, it is only in Miami.

If you know of a medical or dental practice inside a store or a different retail oddity in your area, let us know! We’d love to hear about it. We’re sure there must be something out there stranger than a dentist in a Kmart.

Kmart Dental [Official Site]

Florida Man Barred From Selling Unapproved “Natural Herpes Medicine”

Five years ago, the Food and Drug Administration first warned a Florida man to stop peddling a supposed cure for herpes until he proved it worked and was safe. He subsequently tweaked the marketing to make it less cure-like, but federal prosecutors say he still went too far in promising his supplement could treat the sexually transmitted disease.

Back in 2011, the maker of a product called Viruxo was selling it as a “New Herpes Treatment! Cure for Herpes Outbreaks,” telling people that they could “Never Have A Herpes Outbreak Again” if they took “America’s #1 Herpes Outbreak Eliminator!”

Statements like these didn’t go over to well with the FDA, which sent out a warning letter, saying that any product making claims to cure or treat a disease must be considered a “drug” under the letter of the law.

More precisely, because Viruxo is not just a variation on an existing product that is generally recognized as safe, it’s considered a “new drug,” meaning its safety and efficacy must be demonstrated to the FDA before it can be sold for treating anything.

And so Viruxo backed off on the more obvious “cure” claims, and even added some fine print disclaimers to its website about how there is no known cure for herpes.

However, last fall the U.S. Department of Justice sued Viruxo in federal court, alleging that the product was still using drug-like claims to sell what was now labeled an “immune support” supplement instead of an “anti-viral.”

In the complaint [PDF], prosecutors took issue with Viruxo’s continued pronouncements that it could be used to “stop outbreaks” or references to the product as an “Over the Counter Herpes Medicine.”

There was also the statement that appears to start as a disclaimer before transitioning into an unsubstantiated claim that Viruxo could force the herpes virus to remain in a dormant state:

In his response [PDF], the defendant denied maintained he was only selling a supplement made from “all natural ingredients all which available over the counter an in no way controlled.” [Typos in original.]

Regarding the non-disclaimer statement cited by the prosecutors, Viruxo contends that “It is…widely published through university and clinically proven research, that a strong healthy immune system, can keep the herpes virus in a dormant inactive state. Most all of the ingredients are widely recognizes to help boost the immune system.” [Again, typos in original.]

But today, the DOJ announced that it has entered into a consent decree [PDF] permanently barring Viruxo or its owner from selling any food, drug, or supplement without permission from the FDA.

“Unfortunately, many dietary supplements cannot do what their sellers claim they can do,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “In some instances, consumers might be choosing supplements over other proven therapies for serious conditions under the mistaken belief that these products can help.”

Herbalife Working On Settlement To Resolve FTC Investigation Into Business Practices

Nearly two years ago nutritional company Herbalife revealed that it was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission for its often controversial business practices, or what some people claim is a pyramid scheme. Now, it looks like the company is ready to put the federal probe behind it.

Herbalife revealed in its recently filed annual report [PDF] that it was in talks with regulators to resolve the nearly two-year long investigation.

“The company is currently in discussions with the FTC regarding a potential resolution of these matters,” Michael Johnson, chairman and CEO of Herbalife, said during an earnings call Thursday. “A possible range of outcomes include the filing by the FTC of a contested civil complaint or further discussions leading to a settlement, which could include monetary penalties and other relief or the closure of these matters without action.”

The FTC’s investigation centered on the company’s multi-level marketing sales strategy that worked by exclusively selling weight-loss shakes and nutritional products through a network of independent distributors, or “members,” who earn through commissions on sales to other recruited members.

The probe was initiated after the FTC received more than 100 complaints about the company in 2013, and came on the heels of a years-long legal battle with investor Bill Ackman, who accused the company of operating a pyramid scheme.

Johnson said Thursday that the company has been cooperating with regulators for the past two years, but could not predict when or if a resolution would come.

“Moreover, no assurances can be given that the outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on a company’s business operations, its financial condition or its results of operations,” he said during the call. “At the present time, the Company is unable to estimate a range of potential loss, if any, relating to these matters. We cannot comment on the scope, duration or the outcome of the investigation at this time. We will provide updates when appropriate to do so.”

[via The Chicago Tribune]

What’s Huge, Floats & Has 32,000 Bottles Of Beer, 6,100 Bottles Of Wine & 5,400 Bananas On Board?

I’ve never been on a cruise, but if I were to find myself stuck on a massive ship with thousands of other people and no exit other than leaping into the sea, I’d hope there would be enough food and drink to keep everyone entertained, lest it devolve into apocalyptic anarchy-at-sea. Thankfully, the cruise operators make sure to pack a lot of booze and snacks along for the trip. 

More precisely — according to an Associated Press look at the behind-the-scenes operations at Royal Caribbean — that cruise ship will have 5,400 lobster tails, 21,000 ice cream cones, 14,800 pounds of potatoes, and 31,900 bottles of beer. And all of that is stowed on the ship in a matter of hours.

While cleaning state rooms and emptying the trash are all major parts of the cruise ship turnaround, making sure there’s enough food, booze, and just-in-case items is one of the most important aspects of the cruise ship business.

The AP reports that each week while the soon-to-deboard passengers on the Oasis of the Seas are still asleep, the crew members of the ship are busy at work unloading 25 trucks full of goods in preparation their next week at sea.

Because many of the islands that the ship will eventually visit don’t have products that meet the cruise line’s standards, it must take everything with it when it leaves port in Florida, Raimund Gschaider, associated vice president for hotel operations at Royal Caribbean, tells the AP.

“In a hotel, you get your supplies on a daily basis. You’re never tied into a limited timeframe,” he said. “For us, we only have one go at it.”

And so while the passengers sleep, the ship’s employees bring aboard 10,272 new rolls of toilet paper, 1,000 new light bulbs, 30 replacement TVs, and 23 gallons of hand sanitizer.

As well as, 820 bottles of vodka, 293 bottles of scotch, 765 bottles of Rum, 16,900 cans of soda, 3,360 bottles of white wine, 2,776 bottles of red wine, and 2,622 gallons of milk.

To ensure that guests don’t go hungry at the Oasis’ 25 restaurants, workers stock 46,800 eggs, 19,723 pounds of chicken, 7,070 pounds of fish, and 5,400 bananas.

Just what goes on the ship, and how much of it, is determined by past trends and tweaked to account for the age and nationalities of those setting sail, the AP reports.

So if, for example, a college basketball tournament is taking place during the voyage, the ship would increase the typical 31,900 bottles of beer stocked, along with snacks like hot dogs (10,680), beef (18,314 pounds) for burgers, and other game day fare.

“I’m amazed every single time you do it,” Gschaider says. “It’s an orchestration of all different operations. Everything needs to be fine-tuned down to the last minute.”

32,000 bottles of beer, 10,680 hot dogs, 5,400 lobster tails: Stocking a cruise ship [The Associated Press]

Net Neutrality Is A Year Old Today. What’s Changed, What Hasn’t, And Where Does It Stand?

Happy birthday, net neutrality! A year ago today, after a long and contentious process, the FCC formally adopted the Open Internet Rule, reclassifying broadband internet as a Title II communications service and creating bright-line rules to protect consumers’ and businesses’ access to the internet.

But the end of the rulemaking process was only the beginning of another long series of fights. So a year in, what’s worked, what do we still not know, and where do we sit overall?

The Regulation

The actual rule created three bright-line obligations for both fixed (wired/wifi) and wireless (mobile) broadband:

1. Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
2. They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof.
3. They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.

The FCC exerted that authority by reclassifying internet services as Title II telecommunications services instead of information services, reversing a 20-year-old decision made when “internet” still meant, “I have AOL and my neighbor has CompuServe.”

Passing the rule was contentious, both inside the FCC and in the world of business. But it did pass, and officially became law on June 12, 2015.

However, there were (and are) still plenty of unresolved, open questions lingering after the rule was passed, including questions around zero-rating, data caps, peering agreements, and other tricky issues now in the broadband landscape.

The Results

ISPs swore up and down that the Title II ruling would damage their businesses and cause them to stop investing in their companies and networks, but so far that hasn’t borne out. Overall, their 2015 financials show continued growth and investment.

And when it comes to upgrading networks, building out business, and growing consumer services, those seem to be on track, too. Comcast — the nation’s biggest single provider — is continuing to work on upgrading networks to a newer, faster standard. AT&T is still expanding their GigaPower network. And Charter is still trying to match Comcast for size by buying Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

Meanwhile, net neutrality opponents were right about one thing: there aren’t that many real-world examples, at this specific time, of providers flagrantly breaking the rule — and that’s a good thing! Consumers are generally able to access the services they want without undue interference from their ISPs… although the first complaint was filed the very week the rule went into effect.

The Politics

It’s no secret that regulation is a contentious topic among both politicians and regulators, and the FCC has found itself mired in an even deeper political swamp than usual thanks to the net neutrality ruling.

In the first month after the FCC passed the rule, commission chairman Tom Wheeler was hauled into fiveseparate Congressional committee hearings, asked each time to justify not only net neutrality but, in some cases, the FCC’s entire mandate to regulate broadband at all.

Congress also tried floating their own version of net neutrality, trying to forestall the FCC’s process, but the bill didn’t get past the shouting stage before the commission passed their own rule.

Several of the same members of Congress, in both the House and Senate, tried using riders attached to spending bills and the appropriations process to prohibit the FCC from taking certain actions, or even to take funding away from the agency. Those motions, however, were unsuccessful.

A different set of Senators and Representatives, meanwhile, filed a brief in court on behalf of the FCC, to bolster their court case. And about that case…

The Legal Fight

Lawsuits, filed by the ISPs and their trade groups, started pouring in from he first moment that they were legally permitted, back in April, 2015.

The cases were heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit back in December, when a three-judge panel heard arguments from both the ISPs and the FCC.

The legal case hinges on some narrow points of law but the court will, from a high level, determine one, if the FCC had the right to reclassify broadband services and two, if the procedures under which they did so were correct. If the answer to both points is “yes,” the rule as we have it stands. If the answer to one or both is “no,” we’re back to the drawing table and the colossal fight begins again.

The court’s ruling still isn’t in, but is expected in March or April of this year.

The Boundary-Pushing

Meanwhile, the most activity is happening in exactly those grey areas the FCC left unresolved with the big rule.

Interconnection (peering) agreements are still a major issue, as traffic from streaming video binges now accounts for 70% of all prime-time internet use. The places where networks meet each other and the last mile are only going to get more contentious as time goes on, and the FCC’s plan is still to handle those on a case-by-case basis.

But the next big fight undoubtedly has to do with data caps, and manipulating consumer behavior through exempting some content from them (zero-rating). T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon all have some kind of sponsored data plan in place allowing businesses to exempt their content from wireless customers’ data caps.

(Even without exemptions, data caps on their own, as used by Comcast and other ISPs, may draw FCC attention if they continue to spread.)

Zero-rating remains entirely contentious. Some experts have said that it violates net neutrality. The ISPs and wireless companies, of course, disagree. But even the FCC doesn’t seem sure where it fits.

On the one hand, Wheeler has explicitly called the practice “innovative” and “highly competitive.” And on the other hand, the FCC has called the companies that do it into their office to explain themselves.

Where the matter goes from here is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for certain: any change will come with a whole lot of yelling all around.