Watch Out For Fake Magazine Renewal Invoices

(Sean Winters)

When you subscribe to a magazine and a subscription renewal form arrives in the mail, you pay the invoice and keep the magazines coming, right? No, not quite: at least, not if your address and subscription information have fallen into the hands of a company called Subscription Billing Service, which customers say collects money without bothering to mention that they have no relationship to the magazine publisher.

Wait, what? How is that even a thing that happens? When CBS Sacramento’s Kurtis Ming investigated the complaint of a local viewer who had this problem, he learned that the scam is surprisingly common. A Better Business Bureau representative explained that the company operates under dozens of different names, none of which have any actual relationship to the publishers.

How can you prevent yourself from falling for a similar scheme? Renew using invoices that you’re sure come directly from the magazine, or even using the publication’s website. If an invoice arrives with a price that you can’t resist, take note of the mailing address and call the magazine’s customer service number to make sure that it’s from the real company that handles their subscription billing. (Call the number printed in the magazine, not a number on the invoice that you receive.)

Call Kurtis: I Paid To Renew A Magazine, Where Is It? [CBS Sacramento]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Would You Pay To Watch Video From YouTube Stars Before Everyone Else Gets It For Free?

(Pamela Greer)

We want what we want, when we want it — but that doesn’t always mean we’re willing to pay for it if we can get it for free later on down the line. One company is betting that some fans of certain popular YouTube stars won’t be so patient, and will be willing to shell out the cash to gain access to some content before everyone else.

A new online service called Vessel launched today, reports the Los Angeles Times, offering up $2.99 monthly subscription access to videos from online stars three or more days before the same content is free of charge on YouTube for the general public.

Those who sign up before Friday will get a year free without having to put a credit card number down, but after that, new users will get just a month free.

Videomakers signed up to work with Vessel include GloZell Green, MinutePhysics, FailArmy, Brittani Louise Taylor, Shane Dawson and many more people you may or may not have heard of. Other content will be exclusive to Vessel, including a reality show starring Alec Baldwin about romantic relationships. Yes, you read that right.

Some fans are already ticked off, complaining that the service puts some fans above others who may not be able to afford it, or just don’t want to pay.

Vessel says however that the monthly rate is affordable, and that it’s in line with the changes in the way we consume media. For example, movies that sell first on an on-demand platform before airing on a cable channel and then moving on to free broadcast networks.

What do you think?

With Vessel, others, YouTube stars advance to charging for videos [Los Angeles Times]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Southwest Airlines Kicks Passenger Off Flight For “Broad F****ing City” T-Shirt

(FOX 2 News)

For those unfamiliar with the Comedy Central show Broad City, the two main characters are a pair of unapologetically potty-mouthed friends with a penchant for using colorful language to describe any and all situations. But in showing his fandom with a T-shirt bearing the word “F***ing” between “Broad” and “City,” a Southwest Airlines passenger was reportedly kicked off his flight after refusing to cover up during an unscheduled stopover.

A college student on a Southwest flight from Dallas to Chicago landed in hot water with airline employees in St. Louis, when his plane made an unplanned stop at Lambert Airport due to bad weather, reports FOX 2 News.

Though his T-shirt reading “Broad F***ing City” had been covered up while he had his jacket on, he took the outer layer off after deplaning to use the restroom. That’s when he says a gate agent noticed his shirt and told him he’d have to take it off.

“It’s only when I got back on the plane when it was gonna take off, ya know, you have this much space, you’re gonna take your jacket off because it’s hot,” he explained. “I took my jacket off, so he sent someone to remove me from the flight.”

Though he claimed to the news station that he wasn’t given a chance to take the shirt off or cover it up, and that he “gladly would’ve done so” before re-boarding the plane, he provided a video that shows otherwise.

In the video, an employee asks him at the door of the aircraft if someone asked him about his shirt, which he affirms. The worker asks if he can change his shirt, to which he says, “Nope.” He then asks if he can put his jacket on and leave it on for the flight, and his answer is inaudible. Turn it inside out? “Nope.”

“Is there anything you can do not to display the shirt because at this point we can’t allow you to go,” the worker says.

At that point, the student brings up freedom of speech and insists it’s not bothering anyone. The worker notes that Southwest’s contract of carriage doesn’t allow for shirts with offensive sayings, and the passenger asks if a poll can be taken instead.

That doesn’t happen, and he was instead asked to leave the plane. He says he was escorted by airport police from the terminal after he confronted the gate agent on the way out. He then reportedly contacted local media.

“There are more than a hundred people on the plane trying to get to Chicago and the most important thing is my shirt?” he says. “How does that work? Where’s the sense of priority?”

Southwest said in a statement that it stood behind the actions of its employees in the incident.

“We rely on our employees and customers to use common sense and good judgment,” a spokesman told FOX 2.

According to Southwest’s policy, it will “may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any

point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the

comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members,” including: “Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.”

The passenger eventually boarded a later flight to his final destination in New York after agreeing to change his shirt.

Man kicked off Southwest flight over language on t-shirt [FOX 2 News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Airports Propose Increasing Facility Fees To Pay For Infrastructure Improvements

(largeprime)

With airlines introducing new fees for just about everything from reserved seats, carry on bags and even water, it appears that the actual airports are looking to get a piece of the action with a proposed increase to the passenger facility fee.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the proposed fee increase – from $4.50 to $8.50 per leg of the trip – would be used to finance construction projects at airports.

The possible increase, which has continuously been proposed by airports since 2007, is slated for debate by Congress as part of policy legislation for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Facility fees last increased to $4.50 in 2000. Proponents of the new fee say that 15 years has been too long for the stagnant fee when inflation and construction costs are considered.

A recent report from two airport industry groups say that current buildings around the country need nearly $75 billion in construction upgrades.

Airlines and their trade association Airlines for America tell the Inquirer they oppose the fee because it could discourage air travel for consumers.

The groups say that airports have several other options to generate the funds needed for improvements to infrastructure, such as airline rentals, concessions and rental-car operators.

As for the report on needed facility updates, Airlines for America contends that most of those have already been made.

“Since 2008, more than $70 billion in capital improvement projects have been completed, are underway, or have been approved by U.S. airlines and their airport partners at the country’s largest 30 airports,” the group tells the Inquirer.

Still, the airports assert that the $8 total increase in fees pales in comparison to the fees charged by airlines for checked bags and itinerary changes which can range from $20 to more than $200.

“This is not a tax,” Philadelphia International Airport CEO Mark Gale tells the Inquirer. “This does not go off to the federal government. This comes to the airports, and has to be spent on projects approved by the FAA.”

Also fighting the proposed increase is passenger rights group, FlyersRights.org – which called for a cap to airline change fees for international flights last month – says consumers shouldn’t have to pay more for infrastructure needs.

“Air travel costs are being inflated by 50 percent or more by unnecessary taxes and airline- [and] airport-imposed fees and charges,” Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights, tells the Inquirer. “They should be giving back to the traveling public, not seeking to take more.”

Airports look to nearly double ‘facility fee’ [The Philadelphia Inquirer]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Taco Bell Shoving Aside Waffle Taco In Favor Of New Biscuit Taco

Make no mistake — when it comes to the fight to get into your belly, it is a veritable breakfast battleground out there right now among fast food chains. The latest to fall in battle is reportedly Taco Bell’s waffle taco, which was once the flag bearer of the chain’s breakfast efforts. The company is pushing the waffle taco off its morning throne and replacing it with a biscuit taco that it tested in the fall of 2014.

Because putting the word “taco” after a string of other ingredients apparently makes something a taco, Taco Bell is reportedly shucking aside its first try at the morning meal, according to the Associated Press, which says it’s “ditching” the waffle taco (we’ve reached out to Taco Bell to confirm whether the waffle taco is going bye-bye or simply making room for a new friend on the menu, as the press release doesn’t contain that information).

The new biscuit tacos are arriving at participating locations on Thursday, featuring various meant options on a biscuit: sausage, egg and cheese; bacon, egg and cheese; crispy chicken with country gravy and crispy chicken with a new jalapeno honey sauce.

This isn’t your average coup, either — it’s a “defection” from a certain fast food breakfast competitor that isn’t mentioned by name, but one might guess rhymes with “ShhMcMoonald’s.”

Taco Bell says the move is aimed at “encouraging people to escape the same round breakfast sandwich by defecting to the next generation of breakfast at Taco Bell.”

As such, the chain is also launching an anti-Egg McMuffin campaign calling the breakfast items out as boring and meant for uncool conformists. The posters for a place called “Routine Public” have things like a demonic clown holding a McMuffin-like item with the words, “Routine Rules.” Scary much?

In the same vein as its campaign using real Ronald McDonalds professing their love for Taco Bell (which was also timed to the launch of the new breakfast menu), new TV ads will have “defectors” saying things like, “I admit I used to be a McDonald’s fan.”

Could it be that the waffle taco simply wasn’t up to snuff, despite all the ballyhoo at its launch last year? Perhaps. According to the AP, shortly after it debuted, Taco Bell Chief Marketing Officer Chris Brandt noted that “some of the things on our menu might run out of gas.”

Why not just call it the bisco? That’s a lot easier to say than biscuit taco, if you ask me.

Taco Bell’s waffle taco is dead; biscuit taco to replace [Associated Press]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

RadioShack Bankruptcy Auction Continues: Unsecured Creditors May Not Get Much

(Nicholas Eckhart)

Today is day 2 of the RadioShack bankruptcy auction. While selling the assets of a company that was once worth billions of dollars that still has thousands of stores isn’t a simple endeavor, the proceedings are going even slower than anticipated because other creditors object to the current high bid from Standard General.

Why would anyone have a problem with a bid that’s $20 million higher than other offers for the RadioShack brand and its leases, when the company owes them money? Standard General is a hedge fund that lent Radio Shack tens of millions of dollars in its time of need, and is now using that debt as currency in its auction bid. That’s not illegal, but junior creditors find it rather sketchy.

Just like people, companies have secured and unsecured creditors. A secured debt would be a home mortgage or a car loan: there is something for your creditors to take away if you stop making payments. An unsecured line of credit is more like a credit card. Unsecured debts have higher interest rates to compensate for the risk that these creditors will be sent to the end of the line if a company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sells its parts to the highest bidders to pay off creditors.

Standard General’s bid is the highest, but may not reflect the actual market for the smoldering remains of RadioShack because they plan to pay with money that RadioShack already owes them rather than cash. The next highest bidders are liquidators, who would do exactly what it sounds like: sell store inventory and fixtures for whatever money they can get.

RadioShack Auction Held Up on Standard General’s Loan Terms [Wall Street Journal]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

American Airlines Will Start Folding US Airways Frequent-Flier Accounts Into AAdvantage Program

(benh57)

If you’ve got US Airways frequent-flier points amassed in your account, be prepared for them to magically change into American Airlines AAdvantage points this weekend. American says it’ll start transferring the points between accounts as it continues to integrate the two carriers.

The airlines merged in December 2013 and have been working on becoming one ever since then. But the airline says travelers won’t have to take anything into their own hands during the switch.

“American is trying to make it so customers don’t need to do anything,” Suzanne Rubin, the American Airlines executive in charge of the loyalty program told the Chicago Tribune.

The move begins Thursday when American will freeze US Airways Dividend Miles accounts and placing them in read-only mode. Then Saturday, the airline will begin the transfer of mileage balances and other information into new AAdvantage accounts for each traveler.

The process will involve moving some 200 billion frequent-flier miles in 150 million transactions, and may not be fully completed until the first few days of April.

Some fliers may have already connected their two accounts, if they have them — and about half of frequent fliers have already done that, according to American. Those who haven’t linked their accounts already will end up with a new AAdvantage account and can later merge the two.

What if you’ve already booked upcoming travel using Dividend Miles? The reservation will be updated with a new AAdvantage number and American says it will make sure those miles are pushed into the correct elite benefits category.

US Airways frequent-flier accounts to be folded into American Airlines [Chicago Tribune]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

¿Qué es el autoboicot? #psychology

Hola: Una presentación sobre ¿Qué es el autoboicot? Un saludo



TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1BKnZSU Via Alfredo Vela y www.bscformacion.com

¿Qué es el autoboicot? #psychology

Hola:

Una presentación sobre ¿Qué es el autoboicot?

Un saludo

Archivado en: Curiosidades, Habilidades personales Tagged: Curiosidades, Psicología



from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/19h0lXo

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

No Surprise Here. Telecom Industry Sues To Block Net Neutrality Rules

(Consumerist)

A little more than a week after the FCC released the full text of its recently passed Open Internet (aka net neutrality) rule, the telecom industry has done exactly what you’d expect, by filing lawsuits to block the Commission from enforcing the order.

Unlike the Verizon-led lawsuit that ultimately gutted the 2010 neutrality rule, neither of the two lawsuits filed today in federal courts in Washington, D.C., and New Orleans, have household brand names as plaintiffs — unless you’re a big follower of telecom trade groups or happen to live in the area of Texas immediately southeast of San Antonio.

The first lawsuit [PDF] — technically a petition for review — was filed by the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), a D.C.-based trade organization which includes executives from AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, and Frontier on its board of directors.

It labels the order “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act,” the federal law guiding the creation of new regulations.

The petition itself does not provide specific details on exactly how the neutrality rules allegedly violate “the Constitution, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and FCC regulations promulgated thereunder,” but explains the petition was filed now in order to get in under the wire before the 10-day appeal window closed (more on that below).

USTelecom is asking the court to review the order, determine it unlawful, enjoin the FCC from enforcing it, and set it aside.

“We do not believe the Federal Communications Commission’s move to utility-style regulation invoking Title II authority is legally sustainable,” said USTelecom President Walter McCormick said in a statement that provides no actual information. “Therefore, we are filing a petition to protect our procedural rights in challenging the recently adopted open Internet order.”

The second petition [PDF] was filed by Texas-based Alamo Broadband Inc., a company that most U.S. consumers have likely never heard of.

Like the USTelecom suit, it declares that the neutrality rules are arbitrary and capricious. Unlike that first petition, the Alamo filing puts a more individual face on the impact of the neutrality order, explaining that the FCC overstepped its authority and that Alamo is “aggrieved by the order.”

So why did these two parties file suits and not AT&T, Verizon, or even the more prominent industry trade groups like the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and CTIA-The Wireless Association?

It’s likely a matter of timing. The clock doesn’t generally start ticking on that 10-day appeal window until after an order is made final. These petitions contend that the “declaratory ruling” sections of the rule were finalized on March 12 when the FCC published the full text of the order on its site.

However, others argue that the rule isn’t actually made final until after it’s published in the Federal Register. The neutrality rule has yet to be published so, if you accept this latter point of view, the 10-day clock has not started.

“We believe that the petitions for review filed today are premature and subject to dismissal,” reads a statement from an FCC rep.

If the FCC does successfully have these petitions dismissed because of timing issues, then the bigger trade organizations will still have time to file their inevitable lawsuits.

Of course, if Verizon hadn’t sued to block the 2010 neutrality rules, the FCC wouldn’t have needed to reclassify broadband to increase its regulatory authority in the first place.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist