As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Posts tagged as:

Internet

This is an editorial by Smithee and a plea for your help in shaping the future of entertainment.

At our house, we enjoy some Hulu programming on occasion. Even though during the recent DVR years I’ve become accustomed to skipping commercials, I don’t mind them on Hulu, for these reasons:

  1. I’ve only seen one per commercial break
  2. They haven’t been suddenly, obnoxiously loud
  3. Hulu is free, and so advertising makes sense

And so far, there’s no ability to skip them. I can deal with that, because in an episode of, say, “Defying Gravity” on Hulu, there are five commercial breaks, for a total of five minutes of Lipitor commercials (at first, every episode would play five of the same Lipitor commercial, it was almost funny). I can accept five minutes. That means about 9.6% of a 43-minute show is an ad. That’s fine, so long as the service is free.

But that is going to change sometime in 2010. Hulu is owned by NewsCorp (who owns roughly half of everything), and they have decided:

It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online. I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business

Anything more specific than this decision is just speculation: subscriptions for what, everything? premium channels only? groups of channels? Nobody knows.

What I propose is unacceptable is this: a subscription fee for any user, for any content, so long as the advertising remains part of the experience. In other words: unskippable ads are no problem, subscription fees for any content are no problem, but both together would be a problem.

You and I have a chance right now to help influence and inform Hulu’s decision to go forward with a subscription model, before we let ourselves get duped.

Sadly, we’ve been letting ourselves get duped for a long time.

Newspapers, Cable TV, mobile phones

Newspapers are filled with advertisements, and they also expect you to pay for each copy. The same is true of magazines. In fact you could argue that any fashion magazine is just one huge multi-part advertisement. So, I don’t read them. Oh, I look at the news online all the time, but between my banner-blindness and various browser plugins, it’s not often I see an advertisement.

TV is a different story. TV used to be just like radio: the good parts were ad-supported, and you also had a station that relied on member subscriptions. Cable messed that all up, and we were too busy with the colorful new channels to notice. A cable company would set up shop in your town and tell you all about the dozens of extra options you’d get for $X / month. We were totally psyched to get MTV and Nickelodeon at our house, but it didn’t occur to me until later than since the cable company replaced our over-the-air channels, we were now paying for something that used to be free. Thirteen free somethings, in fact (UHF was admittedly pretty empty).

There’s an argument that in the case of OTA / broadcast channels, what you’re paying the cable company for is consistent quality of signal. I’d be happy to see some proof of that, in the form of a cable company’s accounting spreadsheet. I’m sure that NBC is charging the cable companies regional monopolies a fee to include their programming, and cable is passing that cost on to the customer.

The mobile phone business model just depresses me whenever I think of it. Here’s how a phone worked since the time it was invented: if you called someone, you were expected to pay for it, but if someone called you, it was free. This makes total sense: the phone call recipient didn’t intend to have that conversation, he or she isn’t really responsible. Besides that, this seemed to work very well for decades, and phone companies never changed it. That is, until we were tooling around town with phones in our pockets and cars. Since it was new and fancy, providers decided to invent a different business model: you’d be paying for calls now whether you started it or not.

As far as I know, mobile phone companies have never had to justify this to their customers en masse.

AOL vs. World of Warcraft

Remember those CDs of AOL software? They were everywhere. It seemed like you’d get a new version in your mailbox every three months, especially if you weren’t even a customer. They were free, because AOL’s business model was a monthly fee for access, content, and software upgrades. And AOL did fine for a long time.

Everquest came along and messed that all up, charging both a monthly fee and an upfront fee for the software, and now WoW players suffer the same fate. You’re paying the company twice for the same things they were going to be doing anyway. What is wrong with us? Why do we enable companies to use more than one business model at a time?

Advertising is a replacement for subscriptions

And vice versa: subscriptions are a replacement for advertising. Advertising is one business model, and subscriptions are another. Employing both for the same product is unacceptable.

I’d like to ask for your help now in spreading this message to the managers at Hulu, so they understand the intelligent way to move forward is to either saddle us with a recurring fee and remove the commercials, or leave the commercials in an otherwise free service.

On Hulu’s discussion forum, there are already many threads decrying the decision to start charging. You could try adding your own voice there, or e-mailing feedback@hulu.com. Another less elegant method would be to add an irrelevant comment on one of the entries at the official Hulu blog. In my experience, site owners are more likely to read blog comments than they are discussion forums, but your mileage may vary.

Hulu’s Free Glory Days Are Official Numbered, John Herrman, Gizmodo, Oct. 22 2009

{ 12 comments }



Depending on how you get your news, the topic of network neutrality can seem boring, or confusing, or both. Possibly you haven’t yet heard about it, or you’ve already formed an opinion. The reports I see are too often complicated, lacking reasoned arguments and full of hyperbolic guesses as to what the future might hold. Not to mention that both supporters and critics say that their side is the one promoting “freedom”. I’ve read all the boringly-written PDFs about the FCC’s new guidelines for you, and here’s what it means.

Same as it is now

Enacting an official policy of network neutrality means that the Internet you use now will not change. Broadband providers have ideas about limiting access to some content for customers who don’t pay as much, or aren’t on their networks.

As the specific FCC guideline is written:

broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications

Without Net Neutrality

For example, imagine if you needed to be a Verizon FiOS subscriber in order to access www.startrek.com. Star Trek fans who didn’t have FiOS would throw a fit (those same Star Trek fans might recall this actually happened on AOL many years ago). As an alternative, the owners of www.startrek.com work out a deal with the other big broadband companies and they say, “okay, fine, you can have access to it, but your broadband bill will be $5 more per month”. Meanwhile, FiOS subscribers aren’t paying $5 a month for the Web site. Sound fair?

Here’s another made-up example of a world without net neutrality: you have AT&T broadband at home, and a Sprint mobile phone through work. Your company uses Google Apps, but AT&T decides they don’t like Google, so you can’t get to your work e-mail from home. Does that sound like a good idea to you? If you’re against that idea, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

No reason for prices to change

The Internet was built by a bunch of nerdy scientists to be open and accessible to everyone. It isn’t free, because moving data requires paying people to do various jobs. At my house, we’re paying about $60 / month for some very fast Internet. Critics of net neutrality claim that “new rules” will force providers to raise prices. But remember, neutrality is what we have now, as it’s been regulated by the FCC in the past on a case-by-case basis, so there’s no logical reason to raise prices for anyone. Besides, $60 a month is almost highway robbery as it is.

Internet providers charge more for faster speeds, and less for slower speeds. Critics of neutrality want to invent new ways to charge people in addition to this one simple rule.

Regarding congestion and illegal activities

The FCC’s published guidelines (they’re just getting started writing the actual rules), make exceptions that give Internet providers the ability to manage network congestion and prevent illegal activities. So if you’re on cable, and you’ve got neighbors downloading (and uploading) 68 gigabytes of Star Trek movies, providers can find a way to stop your speeds from being negatively affected. The new rules do not prevent throttling, and they do not encourage illegal activities.

Avoiding an ugly fight

I’m speculating here, but ensuring network neutrality will also mean side-stepping huge Public Relations nightmares for broadband companies. I think a provider has the right to consider limiting access to certain content or applications, and I think it would be massively stupid of them to go through with it. Millions of people would be instantly enraged.

Back when you needed to be an AOL subscriber to access www.startrek.com, they got complaint after complaint, and it was less than a year before access was returned to everyone. Why would anyone want to go through with that again?

Preserving a Free and Open Internet, at the FCC’s OpenInternet.gov web site (which is accessible to everyone)

{ 7 comments }



Banking online by visiting a bank’s website directly to perform typical transactions like checking your balance, reviewing and reconciling your recent transactions, paying bills, or transferring money, is generally safer than doing the same in person, whether at an ATM or a teller. Your information is encrypted and you can take care of your business in the privacy of your own home. There are some dangers, however.

Most commonly, the danger lies in your own computer. If your computer is infected by a virus or a Trojan horse, your account information, like identification name, password, PIN, and secret word, could be recorded by this program and secretly transmitted to someone who will use the information to drain your account. Less frequently, the bank’s database containing customer information can be compromised.

I’ve seen many lists with tips for customers who want to ensure that their online banking experience is safe. For example, customers should always look for the padlock icon in the browser when visiting a banking website, always verify the URL in the address bar has https (note the “s”) before entering a password, and never click on links in emails that claim to come from a bank (phishing). Other general security tips include keeping your passwords private and maintaining up-to-date virus and spyware scanners on your computers.

But there are certain things banks can and should do to keep up their end of the bargain. Many banks already follow some or all of these suggestions, but smaller banks may not always have the money to implement these features. If safety is your concern, look for banks that have put effort into these ideas.

1. Require multi-factor authentication. A user name or number and a password or PIN are no longer enough. Most banks still operate their websites by asking the customer for only a user name and a password to log in. This method is highly vulnerable to phishing and Trojan horse programs. Some banks have implemented additions to this process to enhance security.

ING Direct, in addition to a customer number or PIN, requires you to enter the answer to one of several questions, such as, “What was your high school mascot?,” selected when the account was created. In this case, the question is only asked the first time you are log into the bank from any particular computer, though you may be asked to reconfirm every month.

2. Avoid using input fields in web forms. The most common way to allow a customer to enter information, like a user name and password, into a website is to use a “web form.” Web forms can be encrypted, but their existence is a signal to malicious people who want to steal users’ information.

HSBC Direct requires two passwords, though the second is called a “security key.” Rather than typing the security key using the letter and number keys on the keyboard, the bank’s website presents the customer with a graphic. He or she must use the mouse or other pointing device to click the letters and numbers within the graphic in order to gain access.

3. Require strong passwords. I am lazy. I have hundreds of passwords I must remember for various websites and applications. There is a tendency for people to deal with password overload by using the same password for multiple systems or choose words that are easily memorable. Banks can’t do anything about customers who use the same password across several institutions, but they can enforce “rules” for determining passwords. Strongest passwords should be a mix of letters, numbers, and punctuation. No combination of letters found in the dictionary should be allowed. For example, meaty613 is weak password while yk1lt3m^ is much stronger.

A minimum of eight letters, numbers, or punctuation marks would help to strengthen passwords as well. Long passwords with a combination of characters not found in the dictionary will help to reduce the chances of someone — a friend who knows what you might choose or a computer program that has the ability to use “brute force” techniques to keep trying different passwords until it finds one that works — guessing the right combination. Banks can enforce these rules.

4. Use a dynamic key. To access my work’s network from home or any other remote location, I have a SecurID token. Every sixty seconds, a new six-digit number appears on the token. This number, in combination with a PIN, is required in order for me to log into work from home. Obviously, sending SecurID tokens to every bank customer would be a large expense for any reasonably-sized bank. There are other ways to use dynamic keys, or passwords that change over time.

I am unaware of any bank that currently offers this, but one way to implement a dynamic key would work like this: You enter your user name, strong password, and second authentication key through the bank’s website. The bank retrieves your user account information, including your cell phone number or mobile email account and sends you a text or e-mail message with a dynamic key. You are then required to enter this key into the website.

5. Require password changes every thirty days. In a world where we have hundreds of passwords to memorize, being required to change passwords every thirty days is a huge annoyance. It also invites laziness. I know many people who simply change the number at the end of their password each month, cycling through passwords like flexo1, flexo2, flexo3, and flexo4 each month. Many banks will choose not to implement this rule simply because it is seen as not user friendly. And yes, I would be annoyed if every bank required me to change my password every month. It’s a trade-off between security and convenience.

6. Lock accounts after detecting three incorrect passwords. If a bank detects a series of incorrect passwords for any one account, it should disable the account from being accessed through the web. Most people do not guess their passwords. By requiring a telephone call, during which the customer service representative asks more authentication questions, banks can ensure the rightful account owners can quickly regain access to their accounts while protecting accounts experiencing someone trying to “hack” their way in. Note that the bank should not send an email with a link to unlock the account because the email account may have been compromised, as well.

7. Contact the customer after every transaction. Banks could increase security by informing their customers of each transaction that takes place in the account. When I initiate a transfer at ING Direct, the bank sends me an email to let me know that it has been initiated. If someone else had accessed my account and transferred money out, I would know within minutes and could contact the bank immediately.

ING Direct has also begun to contact me when other companies pull an ACH debit. My electric and gas bill is configured to be paid in full every month from my ING Direct account, and each month, I receive a notice from ING Direct when the ACH is accepted. Rather than email, a quick text message might be considered unobtrusive enough for activity confirmations.

8. Require up-to-date antivirus and spyware detection software. In order to log into my network at work from a remote location, I am required to be running the latest version of an antivirus application. The brand doesn’t matter; I could be running McAfee or AVG Free. AVG Free is one of my favorite security suites. It provides state-of-the-art protection from malicious software (malware), and it’s free.

Banks can install a small application through their website that detects the presence of protective software like AVG Free, McAfee, or Norton, and determines whether the software is up-to-date. If no antivirus software is installed and running in the background, then the customer is presented with options for installing protection. Preventing unprotected computers from accessing the website will help reduce the frequency of stolen account information through phishing.

Some of the above suggestions may be considered annoying or excessive for customers. Banking over the internet is generally safe, but malicious individuals increase their knowledge and ability all the time. They adapt faster to security implementations than banks adapt to new methods of breaching. In the worst case, hackers — or people who pay hackers — can steal not only your money but your identity. I understand that cleaning up the mess left behind when your identity is stolen can be one of the most grueling processes one might ever experience. It may be worth some inconvenience to add more layers of protection between the world and your bank accounts.

{ 17 comments }

Thanks very much to all the readers and contributors who have helped make Consumerism Commentary a complete community for the past five years. In the span of those five years, the “blogosphere” has exploded with thousands of new blogs that write about personal finance, the economy, budgeting, and every money-related topic you could possible conceive in your mind.

The problem now comes with finding the best of what’s out there. I have a number of suggestions.


Carnival of Personal Finance

The Carnival of Personal Finance is a weekly column, featured on a different host blog each Monday. Within the column is a select list of the week’s best articles, submitted by their authors and reviewed and screened by the host. The host also selects a few articles for “Editor’s Choice.” These five to ten articles are often great examples of the excellent writing found across the blogosphere. Note: The Carnival of Personal Finance was founded here at Consumerism Commentary.


pfblogs.org

pfblogs.org is an aggregator of over 1,000 personal finance blogs. This is a great way to keep your finger on the pulse of this niche in the blogosphere. Most importantly, pay special attention to the Friends of pfblogs.org; these bloggers take their writing seriously and work hard to produce the best content. You will find the popular listings on pfblogs.org the most useful. The most frequently-visited articles from the past 24 hours are presented in order of popularity. Note again: I created pfblogs.org.


Tip'd

If you like Digg for finding the best news and articles in general, take a look at Tip’d. Tip’d is like Digg, where news articles are submitted by anyone. For example, I saw an article on MSN Money Central about Henry Paulson, and I submitted this article even though I was not the author. Submitted articles that are enjoyed by others in the Tip’d community get promoted.

It’s easy to find articles you like with Tip’d. You can browse a number of categories, such as personal finance, economy, green, and real estate. These are the types of articles that wouldn’t always “succeed” on Digg, so creating a “social media” website specifically for personal finance is a good move.

The founders of Tip’d have extensive experience with social media and beneficent search-engine optimization. If any niche new website has the potential for success, it’s Tip’d.

Every article on Consumerism Commentary is followed by an option to “Add to Tip’d.” If you read something here that you like, click on this link to share the article with the Tip’d community.


Alltop

Alltop is an aggregator like pfblogs.org. With the Personal Finance page on Alltop, in one view you can see five latest articles from both mainstream finance news like The Motley Fool and Forbes as well as some of the top money-related blogs such as I Will Teach You to Be Rich, Get Rich Slowly, and Consumerism Commentary.


Google Blog Search’s business section contains the latest news from blogs as well as a search form to help you quickly find what you want from thousands of participating websites. Personal finance articles can be found in the business section. Google’s powerful search engine groups related stories across hundreds of blogs, giving you a quick idea of how many people are writing about any particular news item.


Technorati

Like Google Blog Search, Technorati offers a home page for business articles throughout the blogosphere, but with this portal, you can focus on finance articles more specifically. Technorati meshes in news from mainstream media with articles from the blogosphere. In terms of search capabilities, I prefer Google, but Technorati has unique features that let you measure the popularity of blogs and blog articles.


Have I neglected to include any other resources? Please free to let me know.

{ 2 comments }

The author of the Debt Sucks blog explains his recent predicament with Comcast. When I received my first bill from Comcast many years ago, I faced the same situation. My first bill was much higher — almost twice as much — as the monthly rate I originally agreed to. Here’s what Debt Sucks has to say:

The other day, I received my first bill from Comcast, and immediately became infuriated when I opened it up. You would, too, if you were expecting a bill in the 30s or 40s and find it’s $83.31! I turn it over and there, at the top, is listed a previous balance of $57.46. How the heck can I have a previous balance!?… [The customer service representative] finally explained to me that I was being charged for two months of service — the one I already used, and the one following.

This policy — billing for future service each month, except for the first bill which includes a catch-up charge — is never explained when you initially sign up.

Frank Eliason, from the “Comcast Executive Offices,” frequently responds to postings on blogs and forums across the internet criticizing or thanking Comcast. He showed up at the Debt Sucks blog to leave a comment:

We are in the process of redesigning our statement to better explained the first month cost. We could have also done a better job of explaining this during our initial interaction.

Comcast has recently purchased my cable television and internet provider, Patriot Media. Recently, I received a letter to warn me that I should expect to see the branding switch over to Comcast soon. The letter also mentioned that billing dates will be adjusted. If they are adjusted into the future, then I would expect a larger bill that my monthly charge. If my billing date changes from the 13th to the 20th, my next bill would include service for March 13 through April 20 rather than March 13 through April 12.

This was not explained in the letter, it is the assumption I am making. I can also assume, if the cycle date is pushed later, that other people will see a higher bill this month or next month and they will not be happy.

{ 18 comments }