Virgin Mobile Introduces Shared Prepaid Data Plans At Walmart

We learned yesterday that T-Mobile is introducing new prepaid plans that offer unlimited data as long as you’re content with unlimited access to the carrier’s slower 2G network. Their competitor in the prepaid market, Sprint’s Virgin Mobile brand, also has a new prepaid product that might work for some families who want to share a pool of data, but prefer a prepaid plan.

The new data share plans hit the market tomorrow, and will be available only at Walmart. The plans are actually quite similar to the new ones from T-Mobile in that once users gobble up a set amount of data, they still have data access, but only at slow 2G speeds. The plans allow 2 to 3 GB per user on average.

• Two users share 4 GB of data for for $65 – 2 GB and $32.50 each


• Three users share 8 GB of data for $90 – 2.67 GB and $30 each


• Four users share 12 GB of data for $125 3 GB and $28.75 each

CNET points out that T-Mobile’s plans are cheaper, but aren’t set up to let multiple people share a pool of data: that might work for your family. The first few months of the year are an important time in the mobile phone industry, especially for prepaid services where consumers buy their phones outright, because people tend to take their tax refund money and upgrade their phones.

As postpaid carriers ditch phone subsidies, that may also be the case in the rest of the mobile phone industry, but companies believe that prepaid has more room for growth, which is why they’re introducing so many new and exciting plans right now.

If shared data plans are

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Surprise: Sprint Tells FCC That Title II Is Just Fine By Them

(Maulleigh)

Ever since the (current) net neutrality fight got started a year ago, the battle lines have been pretty predictable: the companies that sell you access to data don’t really want stronger regulations, and groups that sell things that need you to have access to someone else’s data plan do. But in a surprise move this week, Sprint just broke ranks with the AT&Ts and Verizons of the mobile world to tell the FCC that actually, they’re cool with Title II regulation.

Tech news site GigaOm spotted the filing, a letter from Sprint’s CTO Stephen Bye to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler and the rest of the commission. In stark contrast to the doom and gloom cries from the rest of the industry, Sprint’s letter says that light touch common carrier regulation in the past is what allowed their company to grow and innovate to begin with, and that they will be just fine going forward if the FCC continues that approach.

Specifically, Bye’s letter begins by saying that Sprint “does not believe that a light touch application of Title II, including appropriate forbearance, would harm the continued investment in, and deployment of, mobile broadband services.”

Sprint then references the origins of mobile service pointing out that the first attempt, a licensed duopoly in the early 1990s, was a flop of “slow deployment, high prices and little innovation.” Later regulation, allowing companies including Sprint to enter the mobile market, was more effective.

But, Bye continues, “some net neutrality debaters appear to have forgotten … that this light touch regulatory regime emanated from Title II common carriage regulation.” And yes, they do indeed seem to forget that whenever it’s convenient.

“So long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products,” Sprint concludes, [we] will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime.”

Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s two biggest wireless companies by far, have both been extremely vocal opponents of any move by the FCC to regulate either wired or mobile broadband services as common carriers — despite admitting that Title II regulation would not actually harm their ability to invest in their network.

In surprise filing, Sprint endorses net neutrality [GigaOm]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

Publishers Pulling Book About Boy Dying, Going To Heaven Because Boy Didn’t Die, Go To Heaven

Almost five years after the release of The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, publisher Tyndale House says it’s yanking the book from shelves immediately. This, because the “boy” and co-author of the tome, Alex Malarkey, says the book is literally malarkey because he didn’t die and thus, did not go to heaven.

The story was based on his experience as a then six-year-old, who, after being injured in a bad car crash, said he had gone up to hang out with the angels. Tyndale had called it “a supernatural encounter that will give you new insights on Heaven, angels, and hearing the voice of God.”

Now Tyndale House has confirmed to NPR that it is taking “the book and all ancillary products out of print,” because Malarkey wrote in an open letter this week that he lied about everything in the book, which was co-authored with his father, Kevin.

“I did not die. I did not go to Heaven,” Alex wrote in a letter to bookstores that carry his book. “I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible… Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.”

He’s now a teenager, and his parents are divorced. His mother had already come out against the book last year, claiming the profits hadn’t been going to her son, either.

“Alex’s name and identity are being used against his wishes (I have spoken before and posted about it that Alex has tried to publicly speak out against the book), on something that he is opposed to and knows to be in error according to the Bible,” she wrote in a blog post last year.

Boy Says He Didn’t Go To Heaven; Publisher Says It Will Pull Book [NPR.org]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Couple Sues Caramel Apple Company, Supplier And Walmart Following Woman’s Listeria-Linked Illness

(Chris Goldberg)

Less than a month after a California family filed a lawsuit against Safeway for selling caramel covered apples linked to an outbreak of listeria, a second California couple has filed a similar suit against one of the candy apple makers, Walmart and the producer where the apples came from.

The St. Louis Business Journal reports the lawsuit, filed in Superior Court of Sacramento County, claims that Happy Apple Company, Bidart Bros. and Walmart breached their duties in ensuring safe, growing, manufacturing and processing of apples and failing to warn the public about the “dangerous propensities of the caramel apples, particularly that they were contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Happy Apples, which has issued a recall of its treats, used Bidart Bros., whose apples have been linked to the same two strains of listeria that has killed seven people and sickened more than 30 others.

According to the lawsuit, the couple claims a woman fell ill in October after eating a caramel apple purchased form a Walmart store in California. Several weeks later she collapsed and was taken to the hospital, where she tested positive for listeria bacterium. Shortly after returning home, she collapsed again on January 10.

The couple’s lawyer tells the Business Journal in a statement that the lawsuit is a step in determining “exactly how the outbreak occurred and will force those responsible to daily compensate the victims and take all necessary steps to make sure a similar situation never happens again.”

The widespread listeria outbreak came to light in mid-December when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning about caramel apples.

According to the CDC, seven people have died and 32 were sickened as a result of an outbreak of listeriosis infections.

The CDC reports that a majority of the people infected by listeria fell ill after eating packaged, caramel-coated apples.

Three companies – Happy Apples, California Snack Foods and Merb’s Candies – have each announced recalls of commercially produced, prepackaged caramel apples since news of the contamination began in late December.

Washington, Mo., apple seller sued after listeria outbreak [The St. Louis Business Journal]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Anheuser-Busch InBev Launches App That Brings Bud Light To Your Door (But Only In D.C.)

(AB InBev)

The distance from the couch to the beer store often proves simply too great to overcome, despite great thirst that is known to come upon some. For those who don’t feel like getting up during the Big Game or the Big Fight (and by that I clearly mean those reality TV shows), Anheuser-Busch InBev is testing a Bud Light Button app that’ll do the beer fetching for you.

AB InBev launched the app with an alcohol-delivery startup in Washington D.C. yesterday, reports the Wall Street Journal, which promises to deliver 24-packs of cans of Bud Light for $19.99 and 12-packs of cans for $10.99 within an hour.

In an attempt to get in good with the cool kids and support its tagline, “The perfect beer for whatever happens,” the company will also throw surprise parties with DJs for random Bud Light Button customers.

Youngsters who’ve exhausted the good will of their older siblings with IDs won’t be able to sneak in a delivery, as the app uses credit card info to verify a customer’s age and delivery people will be checking identification before handing over the booze.

“We’re being extremely cautious,” Lucas Herscovici, Anheuser-Busch vice president of consumer connections told the WSJ.

Now someone just needs to invent the app that opens the door for the delivery guy and/or moves the couch over so I really don’t have to move. Also, the app should bring beers that are not Bud Light in a can.

AB InBev Joins Beer-Delivery Market With New App [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Consumerist Friday Flickr Finds

Here are eight of the best photos that readers added to the Consumerist Flickr Pool in the last week, picked for usability in a Consumerist post or for just plain neatness.

(Curtis Perry)

(Eric BEAUME)

(Joel Zimmer)

(Mike Mozart)

(吉姆 Jim Hofman)

(Josh Street)

(Francesca Giugno)

(Steve)

Want to see your pictures on our site? Our Flickr Pool is the place where Consumerist readers upload photos for possible use in future Consumerist posts. Just be a registered Flickr user, go here, and click “Join Group?” up on the top right. Choose your best photos, then click “send to group” on the individual images you want to add to the pool.

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Google, Apple, Intel And Adobe Systems Agree To Pay $415M To Resolve Anti-Poaching Lawsuit

(bnilsen)

An ongoing lawsuit filed by former employees of Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe Systems accusing the tech companies of conspiring to not hire away each other’s employees as a way to keep wages low appears to be reaching its end. As part of a settlement proposal the four companies have agreed to pay $415 million to resolve the antitrust lawsuit.

CNET reports that the proposed settlement, the second to be presented in the case, is $90.5 million more than a pervious offer that was rejected by a federal judge. The new proposal is awaiting approval by the court.

Despite the companies’ proposition to fork over such a hefty settlement, they continue to deny they engaged in wrongdoing or violated any laws.

“We deny the allegations contained in the suit and we deny that we violated any laws or that we have any obligation to the plaintiff,” Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said in an emailed statement to CNET. “We elected to settle the matter in order to avoid the risk, burdens and uncertainty of ongoing litigation.”

Representatives for Apple and Google declined comment to CNET, while Adobe did not return a request for comment.

The lawsuit began in 2011 when a former Lucasfilm software engineer filed suit alleging that seven companies conspired to keep wages low by refraining from poaching each other’s employees.

CNET reports that several similar lawsuits followed and they were all consolidated into a $3 billion class action lawsuit covering nearly 65,000 employees who worked for the companies between 2005 and 2010.

Some of the evidence presented in the lawsuit focused on emails sent between executives at the companies.

The suit cites an email exchange between late Apple CEO and founder Steve Jobs and then-Google CEO and Apple board member Eric Schmidt, in which Jobs asks his fellow CEO to stop trying to hire one of Apple’s engineers.

According to the exchange, Schmidt sent the request on saying, “I believe we have a policy of no recruiting from Apple and this is a direct inbound request. Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening? I will need to send a response back to Apple quickly so please let me know as soon as you can.”

In 2013, Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit settled their portions of the suit by paying a combined $20 million covering about 8% of the employees named in the suit.

Shortly after the first settlement, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe proposed a settlement of $324.5 million to avoid a costly, drawn-out trial. However, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh rejected the offer calling it too low.

Apple, Google offer $415 million to settle antipoaching suit [CNET]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Wet Seal Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection, Shocking No One

A closed Wet Seal in Miami, Jan. 8 (Phillip Pessar)

We’ve heard the funereal bag pipes warming up over the last few months and now it’s time to play the official dirge: Wet Seal has filed for bankruptcy protection in an effort to keep what stores it has left open in business.

The Wet Seal Inc. announced the completely expected news, via the Associated Press, about a week after saying it would close 338 stores, around two-thirds of its total stores. This, after weeks of employees accusing corporate of pulling the wool over their eyes and closing their stores with little to no notice.

Wet Seal follows in the sad teenaged steps of fellow mall retailers dELia*s and Deb Stores, both of which filed for bankruptcy in December.

The chain says it hopes to keep those stores that are still open running while it goes through the bankruptcy process, which comes down to about 173 stores. It’s arranged a $20 million term loan facility to help it stay in business, which includes paying vendors and landlords (though it’s unclear whether they’ll pay those workers who say they’re owed severance, raises, etc.).

Teen Retailer Wet Seal Files for Bankruptcy Protection [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Fox News Returns To Dish Network After New Contract Ends Blackout Dispute

(Jim Ellwanger)

Consumers don’t usually see all the ins-and-outs of TV negotiations, except when a contract expires and a channel wants more money than a provider is willing to pay. When the fight gets bad enough, the parties go nuclear and a channel gets blacked out. Fox News viewers who subscribe to Dish have seen — or rather, not seen — that blackout up close and personal for the last three weeks, but the feud between the two is now over.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Dish and Fox reached an agreement yesterday evening, and that Fox News and Fox Business have since been restored to the lineup for Dish subscribers.

The actual terms of the agreement are of course super-secret, because carriage deals always are. However, the WSJ reports that the ever-popular “people familiar with the matter” say that the price Dish will pay Fox is increasing from approximately $1 (per subscriber, per month) to roughly $1.50. Since Dish has about 14 million subscribers, that fifty-cent change adds up to millions of dollars.

Carriage disputes are always a festival of he-said/he-said mud-slinging, but even by those low standards the fight between Dish and Fox News got particularly ugly. The disagreement between the two began right before Christmas. Dish of course blamed Fox for being greedy and unreasonable, and Fox naturally blamed Dish for being obstinate and underhanded.

Both companies then started campaigns to get their mutual customers to call each other out, all pretty routine stuff. But Fox also continued to leverage its slate of celebrities in advertisements pointing viewers to a website that would find them an alternate TV provider.

The new agreement is said to be a multi-year contract that will hopefully keep things running smoothly for consumers for a while.

Dish, Fox News Reach Distribution Deal [Wall Street Journal]

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

RadioShack Putting Off Paying Rent For Some Stores In Midst Of Restructuring

(JeepersMedia)

After the news that RadioShack is in the midst of preparing to file for bankruptcy soon comes more evidence that the struggling chain is trying to get itself set aright: A new report says RadioShack is saving cash by putting off paying rent.

In an effort to scrape together what cash it has, the Texas-based company, the Wall Street Journal cites people familiar with the matter who say RadioShack has delayed payment on the rents of some of its stores for January amid restructuring efforts.

RadioShack could file for bankruptcy protection as early as next month, as reported earlier, after 11 straight quarters of bleeding money.

The company didn’t comment on the rent delays, and it’s unclear which stores out of its 4,300 North American locations (and that’s aside from dealers and franchisees) are involved or how far the delays reach.

One source said the chain has paid its rent on time, at some locations, at least, and there have reportedly been discussions of Sprint acquiring the leases to some of the stores.

“We plan to come out a smaller and stronger brand from these changes,” a RadioShack leasing representative told a landlord in an email cited by the Wall Street Journal.

RadioShack Delays Some Rent Payments Amid Restructuring [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist