Misleading Subscription Practices At The Financial Times

from the come-on,-eileen dept

We've spent years highlighting how ISPs especially tend to really screw customers over with things like hidden fees or (a personal least favorite) "low introductory prices" that hide the price jump you'll face at the end of the term. Broadband providers can often get away with those practices thanks to absentee overseers at the FCC/FTC and importantly, the lack of competition. But it's absolutely insane to see those in competitive or struggling organizations pulling the same kinds of stunts. Right now there's all this concern out there about media business models, and lots of publications are pushing people to sign up for their subscription plans. There are lots to choose from, and playing stupid games is not a good idea. That's why I was a bit flabbergasted by the following story, which comes from Hersh Reddy, who co-hosts the Techdirt Podcast. He shared with me this following chat he had with the Financial Times.

You can read the whole insane thing below, in which it appears that FT's policies are designed to trick people (i.e., it's not at all the fault of the poor woman he's speaking to). Specifically, it appears that FT has two "cheap" offers to try to get people: one that is $1 for the first 4 weeks, and another that says a full subscription is $144/year. Here's how it looks on the site:

Notice that on the trial part it says: "Not sure which package to choose? Try full access for 4 weeks." That certainly implies that at the end of the 4 weeks (or within an hour of signing up as you'll see below), you should then be able to "choose" another "package" from this page. But that's not what happened with Hersh, as you'll see:

Eileen (9:17:19 AM): How may I help you?

Eileen (9:17:27 AM): Hi. My name is Eileen. It's a pleasure meeting you on chat. How may I assist you?

Me (9:17:51 AM): I just started a trial subscription and the billing page says the subscription rate is $60+ once it goes onto the regular rate.

Me (9:18:15 AM): But when I look on the subscription page there seems to be cheaper options for pure digital.

Eileen (9:18:28 AM): I would be glad to check your query.

Me (9:18:33 AM): Why does the trial convert at such an expensive rate?

Eileen (9:19:03 AM): Trial offer is available for the premium level of access.

Me (9:19:33 AM): So if I use the trial I can't access the other subscription rates?

Eileen (9:19:48 AM): After 4 weeks, the subscription will automatically renewe in to premium, unless you make changes or stop the auto renewal within 4 weeks.

Me (9:20:20 AM): Is it possible to set my desired subscription after the trial period now, or do I have to wait till after the trial period?

Eileen (9:22:27 AM): We can make changes now, and the change will take effect after the trial period.

Eileen (9:22:33 AM): I will need to ask you a couple of questions in order to locate your account and assist you, is that okay?

Me (9:22:59 AM): ok

Eileen (9:23:03 AM): Thank you, can I start by getting your name, email address and phone number?

Me (9:23:13 AM): Hersh Reddy

Me (9:23:18 AM): REDACTED

Me (9:23:22 AM): REDACTED

Eileen (9:23:26 AM): And lastly, I want to make sure that I am looking at the right account, may I have the payment instrument you use for the FT subscription?

Me (9:23:36 AM): A visa credit card

Eileen (9:24:19 AM): Thank you Hersh. Let me pull up your account now.

Eileen (9:25:24 AM): I can see that your trial subscription ends on Aug 7th.

Eileen (9:25:34 AM): This will renew automatically on that day.

Eileen (9:25:48 AM): We have a digital subscription which is USD 36.00 a month.

Eileen (9:26:08 AM): Digital subscription allows you to have access to online articles and app, except for premium content like lex, epaper, em squared and ft confidential research.

Me (9:26:18 AM): I see that there is a Digital subscription on the FT page that is $2.77/week

Eileen (9:27:13 AM): That will be the equivalent weekly cost of digital annually.

Me (9:27:35 AM): Ok, I would like that.

Eileen (9:27:49 AM): USD 335.40 orUSD 6.45.

Eileen (9:27:57 AM): USD 6.45 per week.

Me (9:28:10 AM): It says 2.77/week on the web page

Me (9:28:47 AM): I'm looking at this web page https://www.ft.com/products

Eileen (9:28:49 AM): How much is the annual cost on line?

Eileen (9:29:10 AM): Let me check the link Hersh.

Me (9:29:50 AM): $144 is the annual cost

Eileen (9:30:56 AM): Can you forward the email to me?

Eileen (9:31:13 AM): I mean can you screenshot the page and email that to me.

Eileen (9:31:33 AM): Can I send you an email instead, and please reply with the screenshot?

Me (9:32:20 AM): ok

Eileen (9:33:21 AM): Thank you.

Eileen (9:33:23 AM): Done.

Me (9:34:08 AM): sent it

Me (9:35:25 AM): I also sent a screenshot of the link I clicked on the subscription page

Eileen (9:35:39 AM): Thank you.

Eileen (9:35:46 AM): Allow me to check these further.

Eileen (9:36:08 AM): Right.

Me (9:36:30 AM): You can click through the subscription to the billing page yourself

Eileen (9:36:40 AM): I can go ahead and apply the USD 144.00 rate to your subscription for Digital access after the trial period ends.

Me (9:36:55 AM): Thanks, I appreaciate your help.

Me (9:37:18 AM): Can you send me an email to confirm that you will do that, so I have it for my records.

Eileen (9:37:36 AM): Sorry, when did you see the offer?

Me (9:37:44 AM): Its on the page right now

Eileen (9:37:44 AM): The USD144.00 offer?

Me (9:37:52 AM): I'm looking at it right now

Eileen (9:38:01 AM): Can you also send me the front page withe the date?

Me (9:38:05 AM): yes

Me (9:38:27 AM): There's no date on the front page

Me (9:38:48 AM): FT.com doesn't have a date.

Me (9:39:16 AM): Also, you can verify the rate yourself by just going to FT.com and clicking the subscription page and then clicking the subscription options.

Eileen (9:39:20 AM): That's what I am doing right now.

Eileen (9:39:28 AM): Please hold on for a few minutes.

Me (9:41:36 AM): If you need help, its this page: https://www.ft.com/products

Me (9:41:50 AM): That gives the list of subscription types

Me (9:42:11 AM): Then if you click the second product it will take you to the subscription billing page. At the bottom of the page is the annual rate.

Eileen (9:42:20 AM): Let me access this now.

Me (9:42:40 AM): If you have a problem try clearing your cache and loading the page again.

Eileen (9:43:32 AM): Hersh, what I will do is to verify the offer first with our marketing team.

Eileen (9:43:42 AM): Can I email you back once it is confirmed?

Eileen (9:43:49 AM): Apologies for the delays.

Me (9:43:52 AM): Sure. But don't you see it there on the web page?

Eileen (9:44:27 AM): No.

Eileen (9:44:42 AM): That is the reason I need to confirm the offer with our marketing team.

Me (9:44:46 AM): Did you click the link I sent you?

Me (9:44:48 AM): https://www.ft.com/products

Me (9:45:17 AM): If you have your own subscription it won't show you the subscription page.

Me (9:45:36 AM): You have to use a browser where you are not logged in with your own account to FT.com

Eileen (9:46:04 AM): i know how to do that, Hersh.

Eileen (9:46:23 AM): The thing is, we do not see the USD 144.00 offer on our website.

Me (9:46:40 AM): look I'm sending you another screenshot

Eileen (9:46:41 AM): That is why we need help of our relevant team.

Eileen (9:46:51 AM): Sure,.

Me (9:47:35 AM): Where are you located? Is it possible you get a different page than what I get in the USA?

Me (9:48:00 AM): This is rather extraordianry

Eileen (9:48:03 AM): It has to be USA.

Me (9:48:17 AM): I am in the USA ... are you abroad?

Eileen (9:48:50 AM): FT is global company Hersh.

Eileen (9:49:22 AM): I am not in the USA but I can access the subscription page and we should be aware if there is ongoing offer.

Me (9:49:23 AM): I know. Is the webpage different in different countries? I mean do you have different subscription offer pages based on location?

Eileen (9:49:28 AM): No.

Me (9:49:44 AM): How is it you can't see the same subscription page as me?

Me (9:49:55 AM): Can you use a proxy to browse from the USA?

Eileen (9:50:10 AM): We need confirmation by our relevant team.

Eileen (9:50:29 AM): If you can hold the line that would be better, is that okay Hersh?

Me (9:50:37 AM): yeah, I will hold

Eileen (9:51:27 AM): Thank you very much Hersh.

Eileen (9:51:46 AM): I am consulting them right now.

Eileen (9:55:23 AM): Almost done, Hersh.

Eileen (9:55:27 AM): Please hold on.

Me (9:55:31 AM): yep

Eileen (9:56:14 AM): Thank you for holding.

Eileen (9:56:26 AM): I got a confirmation from the marketing team.

Eileen (9:56:45 AM): The $144.00 annual digital rate is available for new subscribers in the US.

Me (9:56:45 AM): How come you were getting a different web page than me?

Eileen (9:57:41 AM): What I can do is to switch youu subscription to digital and give you a 25% discounted rate.

Me (9:58:13 AM): So you can't do the trial and then the $144 subscription?

Me (9:58:44 AM): do you mean a 25% discount on the $144 rate?

Me (9:58:58 AM): or on the $360 rate?

Eileen (9:59:11 AM): 25% discounted rate is USD 249.08.

Me (9:59:40 AM): I thought you just said the rate was confirmed as $144?

Me (9:59:57 AM): I'm a new subscriber in the USA

Me (10:00:05 AM): I literally just tried to sign up today

Me (10:00:29 AM): In fact, I signed up right before I initiated this chat with you

Eileen (10:00:35 AM): I am sorry, however, you already have a trial subscription.

Me (10:00:41 AM): HAHAHAHAHAHA

Me (10:00:51 AM): Okay, okay

Me (10:00:54 AM): understood

Eileen (10:01:35 AM): If you wish, I can still get an approval if we could apply any discounted rate to your digital subscription that is closest to USD 144.00.

Me (10:01:36 AM): So, Iet me get this. I clicked the link for the trial at $1 for 4 weeks. As a result of this I'm not a new subscriber. So I can't get the $144/year.

Me (10:01:54 AM): Even though ... I JUST signed up

Eileen (10:01:55 AM): That is correct.

Me (10:02:15 AM): Is it possible to cancel my trial membership right now and redo it as the year subscription?

Eileen (10:02:30 AM): Even if you click the link yourself online, it won't allow you to subscribe to it because you already have a trial subscription right now.

Eileen (10:02:39 AM): Technically, you are a subscriber to the FT.

Me (10:03:06 AM): Technically, I get it. But I mean, non-technically, can we cancel my current trial and just put me on the annual subscription.

Eileen (10:03:15 AM): Yes.

Me (10:03:28 AM): At the $144 rate?

Eileen (10:03:42 AM): You can cancel your trial subscription online via my account or click this link https://myaccount.ft.com/

Me (10:04:00 AM): And then redo it at the $144 rate?

Eileen (10:04:19 AM): Closest to $144 rate, but I will ask approval first and I will get back to you on that.

Me (10:05:23 AM): You need to get approval to cancel the trial membership I signed up for just prior to this chat, to convert it to the current annual subscription rate advertised on your newspaper web page?

Eileen (10:05:54 AM): I need to get an approval if I can honour the discounted rate to your subscription.

Me (10:05:57 AM): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc-P8oDuS0Q

Me (10:06:07 AM): COME ON EILEEN, IM BEGGIN YOU PLEASE

Me (10:06:13 AM): hahaha

Eileen (10:06:29 AM): However, it won't be USD 144.00, but I can check if there is a discounted rate closest to USD 144.00.

Me (10:06:47 AM): Come on ... that is ridiculous

Me (10:07:23 AM): So because I clicked the link that said get 4 weeks for $1/week, now I can't get the annual subscription at $144?

Eileen (10:07:33 AM): That is correct.

Me (10:08:14 AM): Ok, take care. At the very least I'll get some karma on Reddit.

Me (10:08:28 AM): You don't need to ask your manager. I'll just do the subscription through the website.

Me (10:08:29 AM): Cheers.

Eileen (10:08:53 AM): Are you sure you do not need me to get an approval for this Hersh?

Me (10:09:42 AM): I'm sure. Because I don't want to subscribe at a rate more than $144/year, just on principle. I'll just do WSJ for this year.

Me (10:09:57 AM): Take care

Eileen (10:10:21 AM): Well, if you will see that USD 144.00 rate on the subscription page of the FT.com, you should also see, I believe that is written on the website, that this is available for new subscribers that is why it is on the subscription landing page.

Eileen (10:10:33 AM): Thank you, too Hersh.

Me (10:10:39 AM): Of course. Not your fault. FT's fault.

Eileen (10:10:55 AM): Apologies for the confusion.

Eileen (10:11:24 AM): Hersh, I will still make a request for approval and I will send you an email for the progress within 24 hours.

Eileen (10:11:35 AM): I will keep the case open.

Eileen (10:11:35 AM): May I know if there will be any more assistance I can offer today?

Me (10:11:50 AM): That's it

Eileen (10:12:04 AM): Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Services. Have a great day! Goodbye now, Hersh.

As a post script, Eileen did eventually call him and say that she got approval to offer him a rate of $149 -- which is still $5 more than it should be. Also, as a clarification, while she claims in the story that the signup page for the $144 price says it's for new customers only that is not true. It's too big to stick in the post, but you can see it here if you'd like.

This is the kind of shady bait-and-switch practices that broadband companies try to get away with. It's pretty shameful to see FT trying it as well. Especially in a time where newspapers are desperate for subscribers. It certainly seems like a damn good reason not to give any money to the FT. Their reporting may be good, but these practices are sketchy.

Filed Under: customer service, deals, journalism, paywalls, subscriptions
Companies: financial times

Daily Deal: Ultimate Windows File Management Suite

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Ultimate Windows File Management Suite will help you manage, backup, and safely delete your information. O&O DiskImage 11 lets you back up an entire computer or individual files any time you want — even while the computer is being used. O&O DiskRecovery searches for files that were accidentally deleted or lost through a crash or software error. It then reconstructs and recovers the files quickly and easily. O&O AutoBackup 6 will backup your files and keep them in sync — all without you needing to get your hands dirty. O&O SafeErase permanently deletes your confidential files using recognized methods so that a recovery is never possible. Get this bundle for only $20 for a limited time.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: deals

Two Great Ways To Support Techdirt

from the cwf+rtb dept

Happy long weekend, Techdirters! We've got two big offers on the go — one that, like the summertime, is coming to an end, and one that just got started. As long-time readers know, we have a philosophy here called CwF+RtB: we connect with fans and then try to give them a reason to buy, and we owe a big thanks to all the fans who keep proving that it's a damn good philosophy indeed. We've actually been experimenting with some expansions to our traditional on-site advertising recently, but we've never much liked that world (thus our failure to follow most of the media's lead in getting angry about ad blockers, instead offering the ability to turn off ads on Techdirt if you so choose) and, unsurprisingly, we ran into plenty of problems right away: deceptive and clickbait-ish ads, technical problems that interfered with the site for some people, and the fact that both we and our readers have the well-trained ad-blindness of any internet native. So we quickly shut down those new programs, because we'd much rather focus on direct offers like these that give our readers a chance to support Techdirt and get something good in return.

First, I'm sure you've seen our latest line of t-shirts, hoodies and other gear: Copying Is Not Theft. It's the one that's been riling people up way more than we expected on Twitter and our Facebook page. Their ire over the message is matched only by the desire to buy the gear that said ire seems to inspire in others — which is a fancy way of saying that a lot of you snatched up a t-shirt after realizing just how controversial it was.

But, if you haven't gotten yours yet, time is running out! The Copying Is Not Theft campaign closes on Monday at 8:00pm PDT, and we won't be taking reservations after it ends (the shirt will come back some day, but we aren't setting a date and it might be a while). So hurry up and place your order before it's too late!

Next, we've got a brand new deal for Techdirt readers. I probably don't need to tell anyone reading this how important a VPN is if you're concerned about your privacy and security online, and that's why we've teamed up with Private Internet Access (one of the most popular and highest rated VPN providers out there) to offer a one-year subscription to the Techdirt Crystal Ball for free when you sign up for a VPN account.

The Techdirt Crystal Ball is a special members-only feature that lets you read, share and comment on upcoming Techdirt posts before they go public on the front page of the blog, giving you a glimpse into our internal editorial queue and letting you get the jump on the conversation:

Normally Crystal Ball access costs $15/year via our Insider Shop, but you can get a full year for free: just use our special affiliate link to sign up with Private Internet Access. We won't auto-renew the Crystal Ball subscription or force you to cancel to avoid being charged — after the year is up, it will expire automatically.

Once again, happy long weekend everyone! Thanks for checking out these offers and helping us grow our CwF+RtB philosophy instead of tangling with crappy ad networks. All the profit from these and everything we sell goes to supporting (and expanding!) our ongoing reporting — we couldn't do it without you.

Filed Under: copying is not theft, deals, gear, t-shirt, techdirt, vpn

Netflix Now Supports Charter Merger After ISP Promises Not To Screw Up The Internet...For A Measly Three Years

from the promises-with-expiration-dates dept

Charter Communications is desperately trying to avoid the same fate that befell Comcast's doomed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. As noted recently, Charter hired long-standing net neutrality advocate Marvin Ammori to craft its promise to adhere to (most) of the FCC's new net neutrality rules for three years, regardless of whether the rules are overturned in court. Charter's also promising to avoid the implementation of usage caps and overages during that same time period, something most ISPs are hungrily eyeing in order to protect legacy TV revenues from Internet video.

But Charter's also now taking things one step further. In a new filing with the FCC, Charter declares the company will avoid screwing up the Internet for a whopping total of three years, and provide free interconnection to any large content or transit provider that adheres to certain traffic load and point of presence (POP) criteria. Three years obviously will go by in a flash, and the laundry list of criteria is long, giving Charter ample room (like any good merger condition) to wiggle over, under and around a notable chunk of the promise.

Still, the promising was enough to make Netflix happy, the company stating in their own filing with the FCC that getting free interconnection for three years was enough for them to be willing to sign off on the industry's latest mega-merger:

"This new policy and the commitment to apply it across the ‘New Charter’ footprint is a substantial public-interest benefit and will support scaling the Internet to meet consumers’ growing demand for online services and help foster continued innovation across the Internet ecosystem. Accordingly, Netflix supports the proposed Charter Time Warner Cable transaction if it incorporates the merger condition proposed by Charter."

If you recall, Netflix and transit operators have spent the last two years accusing last mile ISPs of intentionally letting transit points degrade in order to kill settlement-free peering and force Netflix into costly new direct interconnection deals. The problem is since both sides keep these business deals aggressively private, there hasn't been enough hard data to prove it (even though we're getting closer). Regardless, the mere threat of real net neutrality rules (you remember, the rules that were supposed to destroy the Internet) appear to have put the kibosh on a large chunk of this ugly infighting.

Needless to say, Netflix's approval appears to have come relatively cheap, but real consumer advocates I've spoken to are far from impressed with the three year window on any of Charter's promises, even with Ammori's involvement. As such they're pushing hard to either have the condition length extended significantly (five years or higher) or blocked altogether, since promising to play nice isn't worth all that much if your promise has an expiration date. It's worth reminding readers that while Charter's whispering sweet nothings in the ears of regulators and Netflix, it's simultaneously suing to destroy the FCC's new neutrality rules, ensuring that there's no mechanism in place to police Charter once the promised window for good behavior closes.

Filed Under: acquisition, deals, fcc, interconnection, peering
Companies: charter, netflix

70% Of Fans Still Can't Watch LA Dodgers Games On TV Thanks To Time Warner Cable

from the good-job,-team dept

Last year Time Warner Cable and the Los Angeles Dodgers struck a twenty-five year, $8.35 billion deal giving Time Warner Cable the exclusive broadcast rights to all Dodgers games in Los Angeles via its creatively-named regional sports network, Time Warner Cable SportsNet LA. Time Warner Cable then immediately turned around and demanded massive price hikes (rumored to be around $5 per subscriber) for any other pay TV provider that wanted to offer the channel. All of the regional cable operators (including AT&T, Cox, Dish and DirecTV) balked at the hike, resulting about 70% of fans in Dodgers territory being unable to watch the final six games of last season.

All sides had ample opportunity during the offseason to negotiate a fair price, but by all accounts Time Warner Cable simply refused to move on the price tag (though the fact it's in a holding pattern over a Comcast acquisition also likely played a role). As such, the new baseball season kicked off this week and Dodgers fans remain unable to watch their favorite team's games. Making matters worse, Time Warner Cable has refused to seriously answer questions about the logjam, offering some variation of the same statement over and over again:

"We want all Dodger fans to have access to SportsNet LA. Despite our repeated attempts, other providers are unwilling to engage in any discussions. If Dodger fans want to enjoy SportsNet LA this season, we encourage them to switch to a provider that carries the network."

The problem with that logic? Time Warner Cable is the only cable operator offering access to its own sports network, and 70% of Los Angeles lives in an area where they can't get Time Warner Cable. As such, Time Warner Cable's recommendation is not only useless, it's insulting. When that's pointed out, the company just refuses to comment. When asked why it refuses to compromise on the price, the company provides similarly epic non answers:

"SportsNet LA is available on fair terms consistent with its value. We know that the rates for the network owned by this iconic franchise are in line with what other RSN’s around the country charge, including DirecTV’s own regional sports networks."

While it's understandable that Time Warner Cable wants to recoup its investment, the total inflexibility here is pretty well in character for a company that actually has worse customer satisfaction ratings than even the much-hated Comcast. The growing cost of sports programming and the steady increase in annoying retransmission fee dispute blackouts usually help drive cord cutting, but in this case there's absolutely nowhere else to go to watch the content in question. Even over the air broadcasts aren't an option thanks to the nature of the Time Warner Cable, Dodgers arrangement.

So far, regulators have chosen to treat these kinds of programming rate standoffs as just "boys being boys," but it's unclear how much longer they're going to be willing to stand on the sidelines given how much politicians love to earn cheap, sports-related political brownie points. Last year FCC boss Tom Wheeler sent a letter to Time Warner Cable claiming that "inaction is no longer acceptable" and the FCC was "monitor(ing) this situation closely in order to determine whether intervention is appropriate and necessary." But the FCC has said little since. Given that three of the companies involved in the standoff (AT&T, DirecTV and Time Warner Cable) are awaiting merger approval, conditions might be used to force the issue over the next few weeks.

Filed Under: blackouts, deals, dodgers, sports, tv
Companies: comcast, los angeles dodgers, sportsnet la, time warner cable

FCC Begins Investigating Comcast And Verizon Making Netflix Pay To Avoid Congestion

from the but-still-won't-call-it-net-neutrality dept

Throughout the most recent version of the net neutrality fight, Tom Wheeler and the FCC has worked hard to keep interconnection issues a separate debate, even though interconnection is likely where the real fight has moved. In short, if you haven't been following this closely, net neutrality has historically been about discrimination on the last mile -- from your broadband access provider to your home -- but over the past couple of years, the big broadband companies (mainly Comcast) have realized they can get the same basic result (getting big internet companies like Netflix to double pay for your bandwidth) by clogging up the transit, and getting Netflix to pay up to interconnect directly. However, in the minds of most people, it's the same thing. Even while the congestion is happening on the network, the end result for everyone is effectively the same: Netflix has to pay to get a quality stream to you, your connection sucks if they don't pay, and Comcast collects all the money. So, when John Oliver did his piece on net neutrality, he actually illustrated it with the interconnection battle. And that's because it's really the same thing.

Well, it's really the same thing to just about everyone... except the FCC. The FCC's request for comments explicitly tries to avoid delving into the interconnection fights, but thanks to things like John Oliver's coverage, many of the comments the FCC has been receiving have been about those issues anyway. Apparently realizing that he can't avoid the issue, FCC boss Tom Wheeler has announced that he's now "gathering information" on these interconnection fights and has specifically asked Comcast, Verizon and Netflix to hand over the details of their arrangement. Wheeler even quotes one of the comments that the FCC has received during the NPRM comments that talks about the interconnection battle, and notes that there are many more like that.

In reading the emails I receive, I thought this one from George pretty well sums up public concern:

Netflix versus Verizon: Is Verizon abusing Net Neutrality and causing Netflix picture quality to be degraded by “throttling” transmission speeds? Who is at fault here? The consumer is the one suffering! What can you do?

We don’t know the answers and we are not suggesting that any company is at fault. But George has gone to the heart of the matter: what is going on and what can the FCC do on behalf of consumers? Consumers pay their ISP and they pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix or Amazon. Then when they don’t get good service they wonder what is going on. I have experienced these problems myself and know how exasperating it can be.

Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on. I have therefore directed the Commission staff to obtain the information we need to understand precisely what is happening in order to understand whether consumers are being harmed. Recently, at my direction, Commission staff has begun requesting information from ISPs and content providers. We have received the agreements between Comcast and Netflix and Verizon and Netflix. We are currently in the process of asking for others.

To be clear, what we are doing right now is collecting information, not regulating. We are looking under the hood. Consumers want transparency. They want answers. And so do I.

That sounds good, but we'll see what actually comes of it. The fact that Wheeler has tried hard to separate interconnection from net neutrality hasn't been particularly encouraging. The personable "I've experienced these problems myself" is nice, but it means little if the FCC doesn't actually realize what's going on here. Also, the quote at the end about transparency also sounds good, but we'll have to see if the FCC actually lives up to it and shares the details or keeps the whole process secret.

Filed Under: congestion, deals, fcc, interconnection, net neutrality, tom wheeler
Companies: comcast, netflix, verizon

It's All Fun And Virtual Reality Until Oculus Gets Bought For $2 Billion -- Then ZeniMax Wants Its Cut

from the fun-of-employment-agreements dept

It's always funny to see the greedy folks reveal themselves after a company sells out for many millions or billions of dollars. The latest is ZeniMax, the owners of Id Software, and the former employer of John Carmack. Carmack, of course, is the famous video gaming guru who left ZeniMax last year to go full time at Oculus. Prior to that, Carmack had tried to work at both companies, but after ZeniMax no longer wanted him working on virtual reality, Carmack reasonably decided to go full time at Oculus. While not exactly common, it's also not unheard of for "rockstar" tech folks to work at and/or run multiple companies at the same time -- think Steve Jobs at Pixar/Apple and Jack Dorsey at Twitter/Square. Usually there aren't any real "ownership" issues to deal with, but it appears that once Facebook ponied up $2 billion for Oculus, ZeniMax suddenly decided that Carmack was using its proprietary technology to make the Oculus Rift work. Of course, if that were true, you would have thought that ZeniMax would have raised the issue long ago, rather than waiting until many months after they knew what Carmack was working on at Oculus. This just stinks of a company that did nothing, now looking to cash in on a big deal it had nothing at all to do with.

Carmack, in response to this has noted that no work he did has been patented, and while ZeniMax may own his code, they can't claim to own the concept of virtual reality. This may not come down to patents (or copyright). It may come down to the terms of Carmack's employment agreement. As lots of developers know, it's not uncommon for some companies to have ridiculously overbroad employment agreements that try to claim the rights to basically any concept you ever thought about while you work for them.

Filed Under: deals, john carmack, oculus rift, ownership, virtual reality
Companies: facebook, id software, oculus, zenimax

Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?

from the to-enable,-or-not-enable,-that-is-the-question dept

If I can count on any two things in this world, it's that salsa will always taste good, no matter what kind it is, and everyone will freak out at some point about privacy settings via Facebook. I mean, if Mark Zuckerberg's sister can't figure it out, what hope is there for my 91 year old Grandmother? That said, if you think it's fun to watch confused fellow humans try to figure out simple pictures privacy and whatnot on Facebook, wait until the next generation of advertising techniques hits. That's really been the problem when we've talked in the past about the "uncanny valley" and how these techniques will impact their markets: implementation is everything. Too creepy and the ads will be universally despised. Too optional and you risk a lack of adoption. Not tailored enough in an attempt to be less "creepy" and the ads aren't effective.

Those are the thoughts in my mind when I see reports of emerging ads/deals technology like Facedeals.

Facial recognition cameras are installed at local businesses. These cameras recognize your face when you pass by, then check you in at the location. Simultaneously, your smartphone notifies you of a customized deal based on your Like history.

Find out which of your friends is willing to deal in illicit eyeballs, folks, because we've just gone Minority Report. Before your creepy-siren goes ballistic, keep in mind that this is strictly an opt-in service that users would have to allow on Facebook. On the other hand, the privacy settings for Facebook were supposed to be transparent as well and we've already discussed how well that's working out. There's an extremely fine line to walk here, and I don't want to come off as a luddite, but I'm afraid that not enough users of Facebook will want to opt in to something like this unless they're really shown some value in it which they can't refuse.

Unless that happens, the above description is probably going to scare people. I don't think the other details on their site help much, either.

The check-in app must be authorized via your Facebook account. With your help, the app verifies your most recent photo tags, using those to map the physical appearance of your face. Our custom-developed cameras then simply use this existing data to identify you in the real world. Personalized deals can now be delivered to your smartphone from all participating locations — all you have to do is show your face.

Sure, all I have to do is show my face and any place with one of these cameras (which I may not know when I enter the store) will check me in on Facebook. This is in stark contrast to the manual check-in on apps like Foursquare. It's all I need to be minding my own business, doing some shopping, and have my friends see Facebook checking me in to "Dirty Randy's Video Store". Nah, I think I'd opt out.

Filed Under: creepy, deals, face recognition, minority report