Shulman reported the voluntary disclosures under a leniency program as the U.S. and Swiss governments announced the criteria used in an agreement for UBS AG to hand over data on 4,450 accounts. The IRS and U.S. prosecutors are scouring the new data to help pursue banks and advisers that foster tax evasion, Shulman said.

"We have now gained access to thousands of taxpayers and bank accounts that we have never had before," Shulman told reporters in a conference call in Washington. "It has sent a shock wave around the world. It has showed we are serious about piercing the veil of bank secrecy."

Watch out, tax evaders. The whole global economy thing isn't working out for you.

IRS Gets Secret Account Data From 14,700 Americans [Bloomberg]
(Photo:afagen)

PREVIOUSLY: UBS Rats Out Thousands Of Potential Tax Evaders To The IRS

Vibrio vulnificus, (which sounds like something from a Lemony Snicket book, but which is actually the name of a bacteria that comes along for the ride in warm-water Gulf of Mexico oysters,) kills about 15 people a year. Most of the cases are people with compromised immune systems. The FDA wanted to ban the oysters while looking in to ways to process them in order to decrease the number of deaths.

The options, however, aren't tasty. Anti-bacterial processing allegedly makes the oysters pretty much suck and is expensive.

Lest you think the FDA was being paranoid, apparently dying of Vibrio vulnificus is pretty damn awful:

As a public health agency, the FDA is committed to identifying reasonable and workable approaches to reduce unnecessary suffering and death from preventable causes. The FDA staff work every day with state and local counterparts around the country to stop outbreaks of all types of infectious disease. Illnesses from bacteria like Vibrio vulnificus are particularly important to prevent because they can cause loss of skin, kidney failure, amputations, excruciating pain, and death.

They had our attention at loss of skin.

In any case, the FDA says the concerns of the oyster-eaters as well as the economy that needs them to survive are legitimate.

The agency looks forward to working with Gulf Coast officials and industry to accomplish the goal of protecting consumers from Vibrio vulnificus in a manner that is feasible and minimizes impacts on the oyster industry.

FDA Statement on Vibrio Vulnificus in Raw Oysters [FDA]
Oyster fans force FDA to back off seasonal ban [MSNBC]
(Photo:tjean314)

Drivers will need to pay $25 for their new plates, and an additional $20 if they want to keep their current plate numbers. Since everyone has an extra $25 lying around these days.

The new plates, featuring a bold new gold hue and a highly reflective surface, will make the roads safer and "reflect New York's force and its resilience," according to the state's commissioner of motor vehicles.

They will also generate $260 million in revenue and create more than 100 jobs - at the maximum security prison where inmates make the plates for up to 42 cents an hour.

Yes, I own a car in New York and just had new plates issued last year.

In Need of Cash, State Requiring Drivers to Buy New $25 Plates [NY Times] (Thanks, Crystal!)

This is no small matter—there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

So far this year, United States airlines have taken in more than $3 billion in fees. If all those fees were subject to the same 7.5 percent excise taxes as fares, then the government would have at least $225 million more to distribute to airports for improvements and expansions.

Won't someone please think of the airports?

For their part, airlines insist that they're just trying to find new revenue sources without raising fares, at a time when revenues are down.

The airlines counter that the recession has forced them to think up new revenue streams. This fall, for example, they began adding a surcharge on tickets booked during the most popular travel days during Thanksgiving, Christmas and spring break.

"We have been aggressive and creative," John Tague, president of United Airlines, told analysts last month. And it has paid off: United collects about $13 in fees per passenger, or 30 percent more than the industry average.

Both higher fees and higher fares are passed on to consumers...as are the additional taxes that would come with higher fares. As a consumer, would you rather pay a higher fare or additional fees?

"Neither" is not an option.

Worried About Losing Tax Revenue, Congress to Investigate Airlines' Fees [NY Times](Thanks, Andrew!)

(Photo: Chris Rief aka Spodie Odie)

Here's the blog's argument for why Bank of America isn't honoring its promise to customers and to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). On October 6th the bank released a letter in which it pledged to stop re-pricing existing credit card accounts—but introducing an annual fee where none existed before sure sounds like re-pricing, doesn't it? BoA explained it like this: they only promised to not raise interest rates.

However, that's not true. WalletBlog points out that the bank made no such distinction in their October 6th letter. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"In light of the concerns expressed to us by our customers, Bank of America will not implement any change in terms (risk or economic based) re-pricing of consumer credit card accounts between now and the effective date of the CARD Act."

That language doesn't draw any distinctions between types of re-pricing, so it's kind of weird to retroactively define the term as only relating to interest rates.

But this is a moot point because the letter only promises that they won't practice re-pricing between now and the implementation of the CARD Act. After that goes into effect in February 2010, the promise no longer applies. I don't know why BoA's representative bothered to misrepresent the language of the letter when he could just as easily have pointed out that it was nothing more than a temporary pledge—and mostly an empty once, since they had already re-priced many accounts in the month leading up to the letter.

As far as implementing fees after the CARD Act goes into effect, well, that's where WalletBlog says that BoA may end up in violation of the law. BoA argues that the CARD Act prohibits raising interest rates but says nothing about implementing annual fees, but WalletBlog points out that the language of the CARD Act is ambiguous, and thanks to a 1996 Supreme Court case involving Citibank, the FDIC considers the term "interest" to include:

...among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient funds (NSF) fees, overlimit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees.

It sounds like BoA may be testing the boundaries of the CARD Act and seeing if it can get away with annual fees by arguing that they're not specifically prohibited.

Be sure to check out WalletBlog's full post on the matter.

"Bank of America Tries but Fails to Defend New Annual Fees" [WalletBlog]
"Bank of America Readies Itself to Break the Law" [WalletBlog]
(Photo: mrkathika)

The key, of course, is that the newly purchased home needs to be a primary residence—no rental properties or vacation homes, thank you. Current homeowners within the income guidelines can receive a $6,500 credit after purchasing a new home—new homeowners will still receive $8,000.

Expanded First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit Becomes Law [U.S. News & World Report]

(Photo: nicolas.boullosa)

"Extended Unemployment Benefits: F.A.Q." [New York Times]
(Photo: Kapungo and laurenatclemson)

According to the Cape Coral Daily Breeze, these are the three tests the CPSC has carried out so far:

• Elemental and chemical testing, which showed the presence of elemental sulfur in Chinese but not non-Chinese drywall. Testing also showed no presence of radiation in the suspect drywall.
  
• Chamber studies, which found that Chinese drywall emits volatile sulfur compounds at a higher rate than non-Chinese drywall.
  
• Indoor air studies, which led to the preliminary finding of "detectable" concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The compounds were found in tests conducted in 10 homes in Florida and Louisiana, and in Chinese and non-Chinese drywall.
  

Weirdly, those are the same results the EPA released back in May. It would be nice to get some new information about whether the drywall is offgassing enough toxins to harm people, especially since the CPSC says it's already spent $3.5 million studying the project.

The CSPC started its investigation back in February, and maybe it really does take this long to first verify that the material is putting off toxic fumes, then verify that it can produce enough fumes inside a home to cause health problems. But nine months and counting?

"Feds: Chinese drywall reports still inconclusive" [Associated Press]
"Tests: Chinese drywall not tied to health issues" [Cape Coral Daily Breeze]
"U.S. Stops Short of Faulting Drywall" [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: Velo Steve)

The Edmunds analysis showed that while purchasers of new cars received an average rebate of $1,667, the real cost to taxpayers is $24,000 per vehicle sold. They arrived at this figure by dividing the total cost of the program by the number of cars their researchers concluded were purchased solely because of the CARS program.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.

The study got plenty of media attention. Enough to make the social media office at the White House take notice, and defend their program. And blog about it.

The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions:

1. The Edmunds' analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn't qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program.

...

2. Edmunds also ignores the beneficial impact that the program will have on 4th Quarter GDP because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories.

The Obama administration argues that many of the vehicles purchased during the CARS rebate period weren't eligible for the program, but were purchased after publicity surrounding Cash for Clunkers coaxed Americans back into car dealerships.

By the way, if you're curious how the CARS program affected vehicle sales, here's a Bureau of Economic Analysis graph showing sales trends for the last decade:

Was Cash For Clunkers worthwhile, or did it simply move planned auto purchases up by a few months or even a few years? Let's take a look at this same graph at the same time next year to see the program's real effects on the economy and the auto industry.

Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com [Press Release]
Economic Analysis of the Car Allowance Rebate System ("Cash for Clunkers") [Council of Economic Advisors]
Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers [Official White House Blog] (Thanks, Jeff!)

(Photo: kodiax2)

Lasar writes:

But when we spoke with [Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP)'s] Sylvia Aguilera, it was obvious that there was more than money doing the talking here. We asked her straight out if AT&T or one of the other big ISPs put her group up to writing the letter. No, she replied, it was she who had initiated the action. HTTP's worries about net neutrality stem from concerns that the policy could slow down investment in ISP rollout, she explained, an area where many Latinos are finding jobs. We also asked AT&T whether they had a hand in the statement, but received no reply.

Ironically, while pro-neutrality activists see astroturf in all this, Aguilera sees something similar in the net neutrality movement. An HTTP analysis calls it "dominated by mainstream consumer advocates and the technology and telecommunications policy elite, groups that are least familiar and least equipped to discuss the perspectives of communities on the wrong side of the digital divide." We asked Aguilera which groups she was talking about. She wouldn't say.

Here's a description of what the FCC's new draft proposes for rules, as well as instructions on how to participate in the feedback period.

"AT&T and astroturf: is 'following the money' enough?" [Ars Technica]
(Photo: ccarlstead)

 
1. Here are the current four rules announced by the FCC in 2005:

2. Here are the two new "principals" they announced yesterday:

3. Finally, the FCC extended the scope of these rules and principals to cover mobile wireless broadband. Yay!

4. Here's one other thing that the FCC wants feedback on:

Providers have and will continue to argue that the future of the Internet depends on whether or not they're allowed to shape traffic and practice general network management. What they'll probably forget to mention is that the FCC agrees with them, but doesn't agree that this means they should get a free pass to control access.

The FCC notes in yesterday's draft that the rapid growth of Internet traffic demands creative approaches to network management, but that this also provides plenty of opportunities for companies to screw over their customers to make more money. The FCC's goal, then, is to give companies room to practice network management as they deem best, but to prevent them from using that as an excuse to force specific products or web content on consumers, or to interfere with competition from other companies under the guise of network management.

And don't take it too seriously when an Internet provider warns that this will increase costs to the consumer. Every provider that's serious about making money fully intends to find ways to raise costs over time regardless; it's almost a certainty that should Net Neutrality go away tomorrow, prices wouldn't magically drop in the coming years.
 

How do you provide feedback?

Two ways:

1. You can leave formal comments through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. You'll need to know the proceeding number of the proposal, which is the same as the GN Docket Number: 09-191.

2. Or for a more "town hall" style form of participation (meaning we have no idea if participating here really matters), you can visit the OpenInternet.gov IdeaScale website, which they describe as "an online platform for brainstorming and rating solutions to policy challenges."
 

"Commission Seeks Public Input on Draft Rules to Preserve the Free and Open Internet - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (pdf) [FCC]
(Photo: dougwood)

Affected companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, GM, and Chrysler. Executives from the latter two companies' financing arms are also included.

The program will lead to pay cuts of up to fifty percent for each firm's top twenty-five earners.

The plan will hit executives at some companies harder than others. At the financial products division of A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, and officials in that unit will not receive any other compensation, like stocks or stock options. Some bonuses previously promised will be paid in the coming year, and it is not clear how much of those will be awarded.

But at other companies, the cuts may mean less. Many executives at Bank of America and Citigroup are expected to reap multimillion-dollar pay packages.

For executives at all seven companies, new restraints will also be imposed on perks. Any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks - like country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company-issued cars - will have to apply to the government for permission.

Yes, a Washington bureaucrat will be rationing executive limousines. The horror!

U.S. to Order Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid [NY Times]

RELATED:

Judge To BoA: "I'm Glad You Think $91,000 Is Not A Lot Of Money"
Welcome To The New Gilded Age, Fueled By Your Money

(Photo: suburbandollar / CC BY 2.0)

Here is the letter from AT&T:

Let your voice be heard: Internet regulation is bad for consumers, jobs, investment and universal broadband

TO: All U.S.-based managers

Over the last few weeks an extraordinary number of voices expressed concern over news reports that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to regulate the Internet in a manner that would drive up consumer prices, and burden companies like ours while exempting companies like Google. According to The Washington Post, the FCC has received a dozen letters from Republican and Democratic governors, a letter signed by 18 Republican senators, and a letter sent by 72 Democratic members of Congress. In addition, letters expressing serious concerns were sent by many state legislators and minority groups, and our union partners, CWA and the IBEW.

We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet. It can be done through a personal email account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the "Join the Discussion" link.

The FCC has extended the period for receiving comments by allowing postings to its blog until Thursday, October 22nd. Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC. It's now time for you to voice your opinion!

In addition to your own thoughts, any of the following points can be used when you develop your brief blog comments.

• America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?
• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There's been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.
• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.
• The "net neutrality" rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.
• The FCC shouldn't burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

Thank you in advance for taking action that supports our customers, our company, and our country's commitment to ensure that every American has access to broadband.

Jim Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President - External and Legislative Affairs
ATT

Well, let's break that down. First off, the FCC's contemplated action would be "exempting companies like Google" because the rules are directed at the ISPs, not at the content providers. AT&T, Comcast, et al are the subject of the regulation, companies like Google, who produce the content that consumers access via the internet, aren't. You could just as easily say it would "exempt companies like Craigslist, or Gawker, or Meatspin."

In response to AT&T's offered talking points:

• "Why disrupt a market that's working so well?" The market is currently operating under net neutrality principles, albeit principles with little force of law behind them. Net neutrality has been the operating norm of the Internet since its inception; it's only recently that ISPs have discovered there's money to be made in ransoming certain content.
• "Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want . . . . The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations." You know what doesn't encourage companies to develop products, services, and applications that consumers want? Making them pay an ISP for the privilege of even showing their content to consumers. A great part of the internet is the low cost of entry for new ideas and products. Forcing start-ups to buy access to a customer base could kill the next big idea.
• "Network companies have to be able to manage their networks... The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network." The FCC, which hasn't announced concrete rules yet and won't be until the completion of a lengthy factfinding process, has already indicated that in some circumstances network management may be necessary and would be allowable, provided it was done in a transparent manner. Telemedicine has in fact been used as an example where such management might be needed.
• "[Net neutrality rules would] halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it." First, content providers, like Google, YouTube, or Facebook, also employ people. Limiting the content that can travel through the internet would also risk losing jobs. But more importantly, there is no evidence that net neutrality would discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. Indeed, from 2006 to 2008, AT&T has had net neutrality rules imposed on it as a condition of its merger with BellSouth. As this article points out, "AT&T's network investments increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition and continued to rise over the two years of the merger agreement. When the neutrality condition expired on Dec. 29, 2008, the company sharply reduced its investment."
• "If [the FCC] is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly . . . . Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines, and other information services providers." This is gibberish. Search engines don't transmit content; they can't, for instance, block torrent files. Only the tube owners like Comcast and AT&T can block or discriminate against content.

In conclusion, AT&T is full of it, net neutrality is awesome, and trying to stop the flow of information is usually a bad idea.

ELSEWHERE:
Now on Sale at the AT&T Store: Anti-Net Neutrality Propaganda [Public Knowledge]
AT&T Boss Asks Employees to Fake It [Save The Internet]
(Photo: quietmint)

The Energy Star program is overseen by both the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, although they monitor different product categories. Last December, the EPA admitted it couldn't really verify whether the products it oversees (computers, TVs) deserved Energy Star label. And now the Energy Department is confessing pretty much the same thing:

While the Energy Department requires manufacturers of windows and L.E.D. and fluorescent lighting to have independent laboratories evaluate their products, the report said, companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, which consume far more energy, can certify those appliances themselves.

The problem for consumers is that unless the program is properly regulated, you could be sold an appliance that uses more energy than promised, costing you more money over time. The New York Times says the Energy Department and the EPA "signed a memorandum of understanding" last month in which they promised to have all products in the program certified by independent labs—but there's no mention of when this will happen, if ever.

"Energy Star Appliances May Not All Be Efficient, Audit Finds" [New York Times]
"Energy Star has lost some luster" [Consumer Reports]
(Photo: tom.arthur)

Consumers Union, along with the Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge surveyed consumer concerns and asked the FCC to consider regulations to stamp out some of the more unfair components of billing and, importantly, advertising and the actions leading up to the signing of a contract.

The comments [large PDF] go into detail about ads that mislead on pricing and performance; bills with hidden, vague, or arbitrary fees (one company assesses a per mile charge, on your phone bill for every mile you fly on a partnered frequent flyer program); and the problems that have arisen from companies setting their own voluntary codes of conduct.

One solution that the comments propose, which Ars Technica recently wrote about, is the inclusion of a modified "Schumer Box" that prominently lists mandatory disclosures. Anyone who's ever received a credit card solicitation is familiar with the Schumer Box: it's the chart that lists the APR, billing cycle, interest computation method, and other important information. The consumer groups' comments suggest a graphic that discloses, for example, advertised minimum and maximum bandwidth, fees, any traffic shaping the ISP practices, and so on. A sample box can be seen here.

We are always in favor of making more information both available and understandable to consumers in order to help them make the best choice. We'll keep you updated on the FCC's action on these issues.

Consumer Groups' Comments Before the FCC [12Mb PDF]
Could a Schumer Box Help Wireless/Broadband Consumers? [Ars Technica]
(Photo: The Joy of the Mundane)

From the Expired Meter:

According to several residents who live, drive and park in that lakefront neighborhood, a city worker started posting "No Parking – Tow Zone" signs on approximately 30 parking spots within the park district controlled lot at around 6 PM with an effective time of 9 PM that same evening.

This effectively gave motorists with vehicles parked in the lot, a whole three hours to move their cars. More than likely, because this lot is used by area residents to park overnight, many drivers had no idea they had to move their vehicles.

Hence, approximately 20 cars or more, according to Betsy Vandercook, Chief of Staff for 49th Ward Alderman Joe Moore, were towed to a city auto pound. Vandercook also said Moore's office was taken by surprise and not warned of the commercial shoot or the tow order either.

Chicago is, you know, sorry about that and Ms. Vandercook was able to get the tickets thrown out and the towing fees refunded. We love a happy ending.

This Time, It Is The City That Works [The Expired Meter]
Cars Towed To Help Prevent Underarm Odor [The Expired Meter]

A Consumer Financial Protection Agency would unify the various organizations that regulate parts of the financial services market into a single, streamlined agency. Hopefully. Most of the legislation is necessarily vague (the legislation "Requires the Agency to seek to promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, accountability, and access in the market for consumer financial products or services"), in the hopes that it can be applied to nasty new bank practices that we can't even think of yet. Below are some specifics.

• The CFPA would have the authority to restrict or ban mandatory binding arbitration. You know how we feel about mandatory binding arbitration.
• The CFPA would also have the authority to designate fees, charges, or behaviors as unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, and ban them as the agency sees fit. So if Bank of America, for example, dreams up a new way to screw you that wasn't banned by the recent credit card law, the CFPA could review it, ban it, and start ringing up the fines. Fines for violating these bans range from $5,000 to $25,000 per day.
• CFPA legislation would require the Fed to review the consumer credit card market-including credit card agreements, practices, costs, and availability-every two years to judge market innovation, competition, and fairness. This is a good proactive approach that would keep the agency on top of developing issues and potentially dangerous trends and actions.
• Importantly, the CFPA legislation treats federal action as a floor, not a ceiling, so individual states would be allowed to enact stronger laws as necessary and appropriate. This is especially important considering that...
• One thing CFPA legislation definitely will not address is usury-a cap on interest rates. Earlier this year, a senator attempted to attach a usury cap to the credit card reform legislation that was signed into law; the amendment failed by a large margin and would probably fail again or doom the underlying legislation it was attached to. Fortunately, some states already have existing usury bans that curb excessive interest rates.

The legislation can be read in its entirety here. A (large) handy comparison chart is viewable here. For more information, check out Consumer Reports's financial policy blog, Defending Your Dollars.

(Photo: frankieleon)

The Fannie Mae executive, Edward Pinto, told a House subcommittee that "it appears destined for a taxpayer bailout in the next 24 to 36 months" because further losses will wipe out its $30+ billion in cash reserves. The current FHA head, David H. Stevens, said there's no way that will happen. Well, "absent any catastrophic home price decline."

"Concerns Grow About Another Another Mortgage Giant" [New York Times]
(Photo: Redacted)

(Photo: jgodsey)

The goal seems to be to counter the last-gasp bad behavior of credit card companies, but it may be too late, notes the Wall Street Journal:

The changes come after major card issuers have been pushing through a slew of recent interest-rate increases and fees. In recent months, for example, American Express Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s Chase Card Services and Bank of America Corp. have raised interest rates by several percentage points, converting customers' fixed rates to variable ones, and pushing through higher rates and fees for cash advances and late payments. Discover Financial Services, for example, recently started notifying cardholders that it will increase its balance-transfer fees to 5% from 3%.

If Congress does move up the implementation date, they say it should help shoppers feel better about holiday spending because they'll know exactly what the terms of their credit cards will be come January 1st. On the other hand, if this happens you can probably expect a new flurry of last-minute rate hikes and term modifications between now and Thanksgiving.

"Congress Seeks Faster Implementation of New Credit-Card Rules" [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: zoutedrop)

The legislation has already been approved by the House. In the wake of another long delay of an airplane in Rochester, Minnesota in August, there appears to be increasing momentum in Congress and among consumer and business groups for the legislation. The Business Travel Coalition, a group that represents 300 corporate travel departments, recently switched positions after a survey indicated the vast majority of business travelers support a tarmac time limit.

After long considering the problem one of airline service, Kevin Mitchell, Chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said, "Now we clearly see it as a health and safety issue."

"It has nothing to do with inconvenience," said Kate Hanni, founder of flyersrights.org and the event's organizer. "As long as it's a health and safety issue it's got a lot of legs." She said long waits greatly increase the chances of a blood clot and exacerbate other health problems.

An executive with American Airlines said he sort-of supports the bill but that if it's enforced immediately, then about 6,000 passengers will be left flightless due to schedule changes. We think that's an acceptable risk—and we say risk because we suspect he's exaggerating—if that means and end to ridiculously long delays where passengers are left stranded for hours on end.

"Long tarmac delays to be banned" [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: kalleboo)

We already enjoy something called the Funeral Rule, an FTC regulation that requires funeral homes to follow certain rules, and that means you can report any fraudulent behavior to them for possible follow-up. But it looks like Bereaved Consumers Protection Act would cover far more than just truth-in-advertising, by creating a set of minimum record-keeping standards that all states would have to follow (although they could add their own laws on top).

"Rep. Bobby Rush introduces cemetery oversight act" [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: chuckp)

Banks find this option much more palatable than having to pay another emergency assessment, according to The New York Times, and having the financially healthy banks loan money to the FDIC would protect weaker banks in danger of failure. Ninety-four banks have failed so far this year.

"[FDIC head] Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help," said Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers. "She'd do just about anything before going there."

Bankers worry that a special assessment of $5 billion to $10 billion over the next six months would crimp their profits and could push a handful of banks into deeper financial trouble or even receivership. And any new borrowing from the Treasury would be construed as a taxpayer bailout that could open the industry to a political reaction, resulting in a wave of restrictions like fresh limits on executive pay.

Any populist furor could be avoided, the thinking goes, if the government borrows instead from the banks.

Forget populist furor. This may just result in populist cackling with glee.

F.D.I.C. May Borrow Funds From Banks [NY Times]

(Photo: Ack Ook)

"People out there are getting whacked," Dodd said. "They should have the right to say, 'Deny me the transaction.'

The Federal Reserve periodically threatens to add regulations that would make overdraft fees "opt-in," but mysteriously never seems to actually do it.

Is it time for Congress to step in?

Democrats Target Bank Overdraft Charges [WaPo]
(Photo:flygraphix)

The proposed rules will regulate wireless Internet as well as broadband.

Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.

"This is about whether I can turn off my cable TV and watch TV over the Internet," said Dave Burstein, editor of the DSL Prime broadband industry newsletter. "Comcast cares about this because they don't want people to turn off their cable TV."

We'll find out the precise details during the announcement tomorrow, but someone is probably going to need to comfort Comcast, Charter, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon afterward.

Official: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules [AP] (Thanks to everyone who sent this in!)

(Photo: Martin Cathrae)

The report was a requirement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. In the introduction to the list of products and countries, the Department of Labor notes:

Buyers in today's globally integrated marketplace face an array of choices when they shop. In addition to the usual price considerations, many consumers and buyers would like to weigh other factors before making purchasing decisions: Who produced this product? How, and under what conditions, was it produced? However, there is a huge gap in information available to consumers about the processes and labor practices that produce the goods in our markets.

The report does not include children and adults forced into underground work, such as the drug trade, prostitution, and the production of pornography. Still, the report is eye-opening, and something you may not be able to help thinking about when shopping for chocolate, tea, clothing, or Christmas decorations.

The report doesn't name specific companies, which would have actually made it useful.

List of Goods Produced by Child or Forced Labor required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPRA List) [U.S. Department of Labor]
Child, forced labor behind many products: study [Reuters] (Thanks, chaitea!)

(Photo: kI-Ga)

What frugal person doesn't like libraries? They're like a video store, only better. Which is why we're horrified to learn that thanks to the economic meltdown and the state of Pennsylvania's inability to pass its budget, the Philadelphia Free Library is closing on October 2nd. They'll be ending all services and programs, and closing all of the buildings. They want all of the books back, too.

Most American libraries receive funding from multiple sources; usually a combination of municipal, state, private, and sometimes federal funds. Depending on the particular mix of funding sources, and whether a library system levies its own taxes or depends on a changing budget line item, a late budget can be catastrophic. That's what's happening in Philadelphia—without their regular state aid, they can no longer function.

Meanwhile, if you live in Pennsylvania or just really love libraries, you can contact state legislators about the budget situation. Or open your own rogue library on your front lawn.

All Free Library of Philadelphia Branch, Regional and Central Libraries Closed Effective Close of Business October 2, 2009 [Free Library of Philadelphia]

(Photo: Patrick Haney)

The Chamber of Commerce insists that the CFPA reserves the right to exert control over mom and pop stores—their example is a local butcher—who extend credit to consumers. The language of the CFPA indicates it would monitor any business that directly or indirectly offers a financial product. So does that cover small-scale lines of credit from a shop owner to his customers? We don't know. And we're not sure that just because a business is small, it shouldn't have to follow some basic rules for how it extends credit. At any rate, you may start seeing or hearing the ads soon:

The business lobby intends to expand its campaign to include nationwide TV and radio ads later this month. Its lobbying push could feature other small-business owners, such as accountants, landlords and event planners.

Also, if you want a good laugh, please check out this outrageous statement by a lobbyist who argues that financial institutions are here to help, not take advantage. (If I were king, lobbyists would have to wear clown makeup.)

"We want to protect consumers. The CFPA doesn't accomplish that goal," says Scott Talbott, lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents big financial companies such as Citigroup, GMAC Financial and Capital One. "Each state could write its own laws. This will destroy uniformity, increase costs and confuse customers."

"Chamber Ad Campaign Targets Consumer Agency" [Wall Street Journal]
"Industry lines up to fight consumer protection agency" [USAToday]

FoodSafety.gov

The first is that the FDA doesn't require Lexapro's makers to statistically back up their claim that Lexapro is more effective than Celexa, which is basically Lexapro's parent. (Forest Laboratories changed the molecular structure of Celexa, which was about to lose its patent protection, in order to create Lexapro in 2002.) In fact, Forest has even used this near-interchangeability to its financial advantage:

The F.D.A. views the two medicines as so interchangeable that the agency recently approved Lexapro's use in depressed adolescents based in part on the results of a study Forest conducted using Celexa.

The second is that sales of Lexapro are on the wane, and correspondingly Forest "has been recently raising the price." But, "Many doctors say they believe that Lexapro is the best antidepressant, so they prescribe the drug despite its cost."

"Document Details Plan to Promote Costly Drug" [New York Times]
(Photo: mandiberg)

From the NYT:

The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually, according to calculations compiled for The New York Times.

These early returns are by no means a full accounting of the huge financial rescue undertaken by the federal government last year to stabilize teetering banks and other companies.

Of course, there is still a chance that those billions will just help to offset the huge losses incurred in other bailouts. Only time will tell.

As Big Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit [NYT]
(Photo:Great Beyond)

The FCC and Comcast have been fighting this out in FCC panels and courtrooms off and on since ownership limits were put in place in the early '90s. The limits stated that no company could be large enough to serve 30% of all consumers with cable.

Now, the court agrees, satellite and fiber optic services are valid competitors to cable, and the threat of Comcast world domination is no longer as scary. Oh, yeah, and limiting how many customers they can have is infringing on Comcast's First Amendment rights:

Comcast told the court the limit violated its First Amendment right to speak to cable subscribers, and that the FCC didn't account for an increase in provider choices available to customers. Satellite TV companies such as DirecTV and Dish doubled their number of subscribers in the seven years leading up to the FCC's decision, Comcast said in a brief.

Today the court adopted Comcast's reasoning. It cited satellite companies and those that send programming over fiber- optic cables, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc.

"Speak to cable customers"?

Comcast currently serves about 25% of households in the United States. The company has no current plans to buy up smaller providers and/or competitors.

Comcast Wins Appeal of FCC's Cable Market-Share Limit [Bloomberg News]

(Photo: cmorran123)

The laptops sent to Vermont governor Jim Douglas were purchased with a credit card opened in his name, and other officials in the state have received similar suspicious shipments.

The National Governors Association has issued a bulletin about the suspicious shipments. It also said that Vermont's laptops were paid for with a credit card issued in Douglas' name - but that was not one actually held by the governor or issued by that state.

Officials in Washington and Wyoming said those computers had been purchased with credit cards whose account numbers did not match any issued by those states. West Virginia State Police Sgt. Mike T. Baylous declined to comment on how the laptops shipped there may have been paid for.

"The State Police and the FBI are working jointly to get to the bottom of why these computers were sent to West Virginia," Baylous said Thursday.

Let's hope that the states and FBI get to the bottom of this before the apparent criminals work their way up the alphabet.

State govs saying 'No thanks' to mystery laptops [AP]
FBI investigating laptops sent to US governors [Computerworld]

(Photo: The_WB)

What's not covered: pretty much what you'd expect, like robocalls from political groups, charities, and debt collectors. If the caller isn't trying to sell you something, it doesn't fall under FTC jurisdiction. (Things like flight and prescription alerts are also allowed.) We think political callers are trying to sell you something—a big fat pie made of lies, usually—but apparently the FTC doesn't see it that way.

So beginning next Tuesday, if you receive an auto warranty or other telemarketer robocall, feel free to turn them in to the FTC:

Consumers who receive an unauthorized call starting Tuesday can file complaints with the commission online at www.ftc.gov or by calling (877) FTC-HELP.

"FTC bans most robocalls" [Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: M. Janicki)

Fortunately, there are web sites that have done the research for you. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) offers tips for making sense of "green" marketing claims, and the FTC is even considering strengthening their Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides) to prevent companies from using eco-friendly claims to market products that aren't the Eco-Labels Center from Consumer Reports also evaluates the claims made about supposedly planet-friendly products.

How to spot fake green claims [ShopSmart]
Sorting Out 'Green' Advertising Claims [Federal Trade Commission]
Greener Choices - Eco-Labels Center [Consumer Reports]

PREVIOUSLY:
Nearly all "Eco" Product Claims Are Misleading

(Photo: Pylon757)

Here are the most popular new cars:

1. 1. Toyota Corolla
2. 2. Honda Civic
3. 3. Ford Focus
4. 4. Toyota Camry
5. 5. Hyundai Elantra
6. 6. Toyota Prius
7. 7. Nissan Versa
8. 8. Ford Escape FWD
9. 9. Honda Fit
10. 10. Honda CR-V AWD

And the most popular trade-ins:

1. 1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. 2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. 3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. 4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. 5. Ford Explorer 2WD
6. 6. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
7. 7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8. 8. Ford F-150 Pickup 4WD
9. 9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. 10. Ford Windstar

CR notes that 84 percent of trade-ins were trucks, and 59 percent of the new purchases were cars, and that "the most-popular new cars bought through the program all offer very good fuel economy, contributing to the significant fuel savings." According to the NHTSA data there was an average 15.8 mpg fuel economy on traded-in models and 25 mpg on the new, replacement vehicles – an overall 9.2 mpg increase.

In fuel economy and environmental terms, it seems like Cash for Clunkers was a success. The speed at which the allocated and additional money ran out demonstrate that the program was a hit with consumers, and we hope it helped the auto industry, although we can't help noticing that nine eight of the top ten cars purchased are Japanese [and Korean].

Cash for clunkers: Top 10 most popular new cars and trade ins [CRO]
(Photo: tjean314)

The Huffington Post used the Freedom of Information Act to pull data on the herbicide and discovered that

...more than 40 water systems in [Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansa] showed spikes in atrazine levels that normally would have triggered automatic notification of customers. In none of those cases were residents alerted.

The EPA says it didn't notify anyone because there's no evidence atrazine hurts humans. It's true, so far—other than the gender-bending frogs, there's no study that proves a link between atrazine and deleterious effects in humans. (Europe has in fact banned it, but Europe and the U.S. don't exactly share the same philosophy when it comes to banning chemicals.)

More troubling is the idea that perhaps the EPA and water utilities have been deliberately hiding information about atrazine measurements from the public to avoid PR or media disasters. The Huffington Post notes that water bills sent out to customers during the period of the study contained quarterly data on measurements, which conveniently missed the spikes that the EPA's weekly measurements documented. Because of this, the water bills weren't required to mention those spikes to customers. In addition, the Huffington Post notes that information about atrazine was hidden from the public EPA site:

Asked why the results of the weekly tests had not been published, the EPA's Bradbury said "no data is withheld from the public." Bradbury said the information has been posted on the agency's electronic public docket. In fact, the weekly test results are one of the only items on the docket that are not posted on the site.

Instead they are listed as available only through the Freedom of Information Act.

Robert Denver, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Michigan who has worked with the EPA, told the Huffington Post that "This is an issue of the EPA not being forthright about what they know." An ecotoxicology specialist at the University of South Florida said, "It is the responsibility of the EPA and [atrazine manufacturer] Syngenta to inform the public of accurate levels of atrazine in their drinking water."

To be clear, we're not ready to get all up in arms about Killer Atrazine just yet; we just want the EPA to be forthright. The current levels of atrazine may not turn any watersheds into chemical wastelands, but we're not sure why the EPA would require the testing and yet sit on the results.

"EPA Fails To Inform Public About Weed-Killer In Drinking Water" [Huffington Post]
(Photo: stefanie says)

Short version of events: It's all Apple's fault. Apple is allegedly not only annoyed at Google's domination of the iPhone platform, but lying outright about what happened to the Google Voice app.

According to Apple's statement to the FCC, the Google Voice application is still being held because it so radically alters the way that regular phone calls are made and text messages composed on the phone.

The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.

Apple also took the opportunity to explain that yes, they do reject some applications at AT&T's request: namely, some VoIP and television applications.

There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

In AT&T makes a point in their press release to remind consumers that they can still access Google Voice through its web interface:

AT&T does not block consumers from accessing any lawful website on the Internet. Consumers can download or launch a multitude of compatible applications directly from the Internet, including Google Voice, through any web-enabled wireless device. As a result, any AT&T customer may access and use Google Voice on any web-enabled device operating on AT&T's network, including the iPhone, by launching the application through their web browser, without the need to use the Apple App Store.

So that's what the companies say. It's all quite understandable and innocuous. Too bad it isn't actually true. Techcrunch's sources claim that most of the responses are lies, half-truths, or at best, misleading.The part of Google's statement that deals with this subject is, tellingly, redacted in the version released to the public.

Multiple sources at Google tell us that in informal discussions with Apple over the last few months Apple expressed dismay at the number of core iPhone apps that are powered by Google. Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google. Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features. The Google Voice App takes things one step further, by giving users an incentive to abandon their iPhone phone number and use their Google Voice phone number instead (transcription of voicemails is reason enough alone). Apple was afraid, say our sources, that Google was gaining too much power on the iPhone, and that's why they rejected the application.

The Truth: What's Really Going On With Apple, Google, AT&T And The FCC [Techcrunch]
Apple Answers The FCC's Questions [Apple]
ATT Response to FCC iPhone Letter [Scribd]
Google Response to FCC [Scribd]

PREVIOUSLY:
FCC Asks Apple, AT&T To Explain Why They Rejected Google Voice App
Three Ways To Use Google Voice On Your iPhone
Who Killed The Google Voice iPhone Application?

(Photo: dcwriterdawn)

As a part of the Obama Administration's economic stimulus bill to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient appliances, the $300 million appliance-rebate program will soon dole out amounts that could reach $200 if you buy Energy Star-qualified models. Appliances that qualify for the Star should use roughly 10 to 25 percent less energy than the maximum allowed for that category by the Department of Energy, which monitors the Energy Star program.

Unlike the Cash for Clunkers car program, you won't have to turn in your old appliance to get the rebate. But states are expected to have recycling plans for the flood of old appliances the program could unleash. And while the money is coming from Washington, how much you get for which appliance will be a state-by-state decision.

Cash for Clunkers moves to appliances: money back for your old Kelvinator? [Consumer Reports Home & Garden]

(Photo: Dan4th)

"This program has been a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "At the same time, we've been able to take old, polluting cars off the road and help consumers purchase fuel efficient vehicles."

But the program has proven so popular that the Obama administration has struggled to keep its growth in check, pushing an emergency $2-billion extension through Congress earlier this month when the plan burned through its original $1 billion in about a week.

Yes, the program is ending because of its success, and the continued fear that it will run out of money.

A good measure of success for a government program if there ever was one. Um, maybe.

U.S. to shut down cash for clunkers at 8 p.m. Monday [Detroit Free Press]