Author: Chris Morran

At a speech today in Philadelphia, President Barack Obama set his sights on the insurance industry as the main stumbling block to the passing of a National Health Care plan, saying they would rather not insure the people who need insurance the most.

“These insurance companies have made a calculation,” Obama told the crowd at Arcadia University. “They’re okay with people being priced out of health insurance because they’ll still make more by raising premiums on the customers they keep.”

Some have defended the recent moves of insurance companies like Anthem Blue Cross in California, who are attempting to raise rates on some policy holders by over %30, saying that there’s no reason for insurers not to make a profit in every sector of their business. However, says Obama, it’s just a matter of time until the average person starts feeling the water boiling around them.

“Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher… They will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. This is no secret,” he explained. “They’re telling their investors this: ‘We are in the money. We are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship.’”

Obama recounted a recent conference call organized by Goldman Sachs during which an insurance broker said insurance companies were better off raising rates on existing customers and losing customers than expanding their business with new customers.

The President is pushing for a vote on the plan by March 18.

“It’s time to make a decision,” he said. “The time for talk is over.”

He even had some words for those in his own party who think it’s risky to stick their neck out on this topic during a mid-term election year. “My question to them is, ‘When’s the right time? If not now, when? If not us, who? Is it a year from now or two years from now or five years from now or 10 years from now?’ I think it’s right now, and that’s why you’re here today.”

Anyone who currently owns an iPhone and was hoping they would be able to use it as a mobile web access point for a WiFi iPad got some bad news today, as Apple’s turtleneck-in-charge Steve Jobs has reportedly said this will not happen.

Swedish blog Slashat.se claims they e-mailed Job directly to ask him whether or not you’d be able to tether your iPad and iPhone and received a terse “No” in reply.

The decision of whether or not to allow iPhone tethering or not has always been the decision of the mobile carrier, with several European carriers having allowed it. Stateside, AT&T has promised, but never delivered, on allowing users to tether their computers to their iPhones.

If Jobs’ pronouncement is A) true and B) a permanent decision by Apple, then users the only way to get 3G web access on your iPad is by purchasing the significantly more expensive 3G version of the product.

This is just the latest of knocks against the iPad, which offers fewer capabilities and higher price tag than a comparable netbook.

Steve Jobs says ‘No’ to iPhone-to-iPad tether [The Register]

Last week, we wrote about the travails of a Domino’s delivery driver who was not only mugged on the job, but also told he had to repay the stolen cash to his boss. We’re happy to say that there’s an update to the story — and it’s good news.

The owner of the Domino’s in question now says that, because of the arrests that have been made in the case, the driver won’t have to repay the $61 stolen from him when he was attacked by five robbers while making a deliver in Raleigh, NC.

Initially, the store owner had sought to be compensated for the purloined cash because he claims it is company policy for drivers to never have more than $20 cash on them at any time.

But, as many Consumerist readers pointed out, that’s essentially an impossibility, unless each driver only makes one delivery before returning to the store to deposit the cash.

Domino’s driver won’t have to repay stolen money [WRAL]

For every ounce of common sense inside of you that knows the last thing you should eat when trying to watch your weight is a deep-fried, battered piece of processed chicken “meat.” But don’t tell that to the folks at Weight Watchers who have actually given their seal of approval to three separate meals available at McDonald’s in New Zealand and Australia.

The McNugget isn’t the only questionable piece of breaded McDonald’s meat-on-a-bun that Weight Watchers has signed off on. They’ve also given the thumbs up to a meal featuring the Filet-O-Fish, made from the rare “squarefish.”

The third menu item, “sweet chilli [sic] seared chicken wrap,” may sound like the most diet-friendly item on the Weight Watchers menu, but it’s actually the worst.

According to McD’s own nutrition info, that wrap has 374 calories, 40.5 grams of carbohydrats, 9.8 g of fat and a salty 801 mg of sodium.

The Filet o Fish is slightly less bad for you at 330 calories, 32.4 g of carbs, 14.9 g of fat,
and 647 mg sodium.

Perhaps surprisingly, the 6-piece box-o-nuggets is the least hurtful. It’ll cost you 269 calories, 11.3 g of carbs, 12.9 g of fat, 405 mg of sodium. Even when throwing in another 47 calories, 10.7 g of carbs and 183 mg of sodium for a thingy of BBQ sauce, it’s still the least of the three options.

All three meals are partnered with a garden salad and a Diet Coke (because we all know how good diet drinks are for you) or a bottle of water.

Obviously, this news has drawn a lot of derision from people saying that Weight Watchers has devalued its own brand by approving of fast food. The partnership does has some defenders who say that Weight Watchers is merely showing people that even fast food — when consumed wisely — isn’t going to make you fat.

What do you think — Shouldn’t the focus be on eating healthier, not just eating slightly less junk food? Or is this just Weight Watchers being realists and demonstrating that you can occasionally enjoy a meal at McDonald’s?

Lose weight: eat McNuggets! [CityPages]

For U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, they’re coming home to a depressed job market and double-digit unemployment. That’s why a little Washington-based software company called Microsoft is ponying up $2 million in cash and $6 million in software to help these new civilians find jobs.

The Elevate America’s Veterans Initiative will spread the cash around to veterans service organizations, workforce agencies and community colleges. The Initiative also will provide training and help with job placement, child care and housing. The initiative is intended to support active duty service members who are transitioning out of the military as well as members of the National Guard and Reserves who are returning to their civilian jobs.

“In the coming years, a significant number of veterans will seek civilian employment opportunities. Microsoft’s new initiative provides veterans with the tools to successfully transition to new careers and contribute to economic growth in an especially tough economy,” said Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “Microsoft has been the leader in the technology revolution, and we appreciate its strength and commitment to our returning heroes. The company is sending a message to veterans nationwide that it has their back. IAVA is excited to be a part of this coalition, and we look forward to working with Microsoft to make a historic impact.”

“Our servicemen and women are amazing leaders, but to be able to compete in the tough job market when they return from duty, many of them need access to technology training,” said Pamela Passman, corporate vice president of Microsoft Global Corporate Affairs. “We are bringing together organizations and companies that can combine their competencies and resources with ours to make the greatest possible impact to help veterans and their spouses.”

Microsoft to give $2M cash, $6M in software to veterans [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

Adding a bit of fuel to the anti-Toyota fire, six Toyota manufacturing employees now say they wrote a memo to company executives in 2006 voicing concerns about vehicle safety and long-term impact on the company, only to be completely ignored.

“We are concerned about the processes which are essential for producing safe cars, but that ultimately may be ignored, with production continued in the name of competition,” they stated in the letter, referring to changes the car company had made to simultaneously cut overhead while increasing output.

In the five years leading up to the drafting of this memo, Toyota had already recalled over 5 million cars worldwide and these men felt that, if the company continued down that path, it could “become a great problem that involves the company’s survival.”

But rather than rankle any feathers with their higher-ups, the memo merely vanished and was never spoken of again.

“They completely ignored us,” says 62-year-old assembly line worker Tadao Wakatsuki. “That’s the Toyota way.”

Toyota wouldn’t confirm ever receiving the memo or comment on it, saying only, “Communication is the backbone of our labor-management relations.”

If so, then maybe they should listen to Watasuki, founder of the All Toyota Labor Union, who is now speaking to the press.

“We used to test every one of our cars for safety and quality,” he told reporters. “Now we do maybe 60%. The old 100% is a thing of the past.”

Speaking about the decision to write the memo, he recalls, “Our responsibility as a labor union was to point out these problems that Toyota should have known about. People were overworked; some were committing suicide… Of course, Toyota did nothing, but looking back we see how important this was. We just told them what we saw.”

The revelation of the memo and Toyota’s alleged ignorance of it has gotten the attention of Congressman Ed Townes, chair of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, which questioned Toyota president Akio Toyoda in February.

“The Toyota employees’ safety memo now seems strikingly prescient,” wrote Townes in a not-very-pleased letter to Mr. Toyoda this morning. “If senior Toyota officials ignored important safety concerns raised by their own employees, it calls into question Toyota’s corporate priorities and its commitment to safety.”

Townes has requested that Toyota deliver a copy of the 2006 memo to the Committee before noon on Wednesday.

Toyota workers raised safety concerns with bosses in 2006 memo [L.A. Times]

Looking to book a cheap flight in the next few hours? Then check out JetBlue. The airline is saying “Happy 10th birthday” to itself with $10 fares from NYC to 10 other destinations — but only until 11:59pm CST tonight.

You can fly for only $10 from NYC to Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, West Palm Beach and Fort Myers, Florida; Buffalo and Rochester, New York; Oakland, California; Burlington, Vermont; and Salt Lake City, Utah. But the catch is you have to book the flight today and you have to travel on Tuesday or Wednesday, March 9 or 10.

This is apparently just the beginning in a series of deals to celebrate JetBlue’s 10th anniversary. NYC-based customers are being told to check out the airline’s Twitter account on Wednesday for some giveaway offers.

JetBlue offers $10 last-minute fares [CNN]

It’s one of the oldest dirty tricks in the books. You get people to go to your store by putting up a “closed” sign outside your competitor. And it’s a lesson allegedly learned by the folks at a mall in Queens, NY, where they’ve been caught putting official “no parking” signs on metered parking spots on surrounding public streets in an apparent move to get drivers into their parking garage.

According to photos like the one at the left and witnesses quoted by the NY Daily News, parking attendants at the Queens Center Mall have been taping the neon green “no parking” signs, complete with NYPD emblem, on parking meters on weekends and holidays. Sometimes they would go so far as to place traffic cones and sawhorse barricades to further discourage parking.

However, the NYPD has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

“The precinct was not aware that these signs were being put up,” an NYPD spokesman said. “The only people that are allowed to put these signs up are the NYPD.”

While some accuse the mall of trying to force drivers away from the metered spots — which only cost $.75/hour — and into the garage, which is $3 for the first hour and $1 for every additional hour, the mall’s management says the reason for illegally posting the fake NYPD signs was “to facilitate traffic flow.”

The mall had originally gotten temporary permission to use no parking signs in 2004 during a period of heavy expansion and construction, but was not supposed to use them after construction was completed. But the mall decided to just keep on pretending as if they had the authority to block off parking spots not belonging to them.

“Initially, the signage was provided by the Police Department,” the mall rep explained. “Rather than have them re-issue the signs over and over, we created signs.”

The local NYPD precinct says they have since spoken to the parking staff at the mall to clarify the situation and the mall rep confirms, “we will not be putting the signs up anymore.”

Queens Center Mall steers shoppers to its garage with bogus signs on parking meters [NY Daily News]

Okay, so Avatar was a big blue dud at the Oscars last night. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the 3-D spectacle has made more money than some small countries. And with Alice In Wonderland raking in over $100 million in its opening weekend, the U.S. movie audience has shown it’s willing to embrace 3-D. That’s why Panasonic has teamed up with Best Buy to push its new line of 3-D TVs.

Panasonic has some hefty competition in the 3-D TV market from the likes of Samsung, Sony and LG, so it’s made a deal with Best Buy to set up demonstration areas to show off their products in the retail giant’s stores. According to reports, the initial launch will be in 300 Best Buys, increasing to 1,000 stores by year’s end.

Panasonic hopes to sell approximately 500,000 3-D TVs in the U.S. in 2010. They are expected to price their 50″ 3-D unit at around $2,500, which is more than double the current cost of their same size 2-D screen.

What do you think about 3-D? Is it the future of home theater? How much would you be willing to spend on a 3-D TV?

Panasonic, Best Buy to tie up on 3D TV sales [Reuters]

It’s a story that sounds too odd to be true, but a judge in Brownsville, Texas, has filed a lawsuit against his local Sam’s Club, the store’s manager and the store’s parent company Walmart Stores Inc., alleging that a bad customer service experience led to his arrest and involuntary commitment to two mental health facilities.

According to the lawsuit, the 46-year-old plaintiff, a municipal judge with 8 years on the bench and 17 years in law, went to purchase some diamond earrings for his wife at Sam’s Club. He claims that the Sam’s employees questioned his purchase of the pricey earrings and a verbal dispute began, ultimately leading to his arrest and confinement in a mental health facility.

The judge was released after two weeks when a court deemed him harmless to himself and others. But only a few days later, after displaying worrisome behavior his friends and family had him hospitalized at a second facility, where he received court-ordered treatment and has since been released.

In the lawsuit, he accuses the Sam’s Club, et al, of making a “false report to the Brownsville Police Department alleging [he] was guilty of disorderly conduct and terroristic threats.”

Among the allegations made by the plaintiff, who has been diagnosed as bipolar, against the store “include, but are not limited to, negligence, gross negligence, false imprisonment, defamation, malicious prosecution.”

The Sam’s Club manager named in the suit told reporters he did not remember the dispute and was not aware that a lawsuit had been filed against him.

Speaking to the press about his lawsuit, the judge said, “Now Sam’s will learn something about customer service and the First Amendment.”

Municipal Judge Phil Bellamy files another lawsuit [Brownsville Herald]

No, this isn’t a follow-up to our story from earlier week about the Domino’s driver who was robbed of his chicken wings at gunpoint. This a completely new robbery involving an unfortunate Domino’s employee, made all the worse because he says his boss wants him to repay the purloined cash.

The 20-year-old driver was attempting a delivery in Raleigh, NC on Wednesday night when he was robbed by five people wearing red bandanas.

“As soon I turned to the left, I got hit in the face, and I went down, and they just started stomping me,” the victim said of the attack. “If you look at my lips, it’s busted across my two front teeth. My bottom lip got busted. My nose got busted pretty bad.”

And it was a case of literally adding insult to injury when the driver returned to his workplace to say he no longer wanted to work there, only to be told by the manager that he’d need to repay the money that was lost.

The owner of that Domino’s explains, “No final decision has been made yet, but there is a companywide policy that says drivers are not supposed to carry more than $20 on them at any time.” He added that the policy exists solely to prevent drivers from becoming targets of attackers.

“I just feel like my life was threatened. I don’t see why I should have to pay $61 back,” the driver said about the situation. “I think it’s crazy…. I feel like, if I didn’t have anything to give the dudes, they might not have stopped attacking me.”

Three teens have been arrested in the attack, with police on the lookout for the remaining two suspects.

“I’m just glad they got caught,” said the driver. “I’m hoping they have to serve some time or something.”

This is the second such attack in less than two months on a Domino’s driver from the same store. Sadly, the driver in the first attack died of injuries suffered in the attack.

Domino’s driver told to repay money lost in attack [WRAL]

Starting Monday, some passengers at Boston’s Logan Airport will have the honor and privilege of being the first to be scanned by a new machine that probably costs more than their house. And this is just the beginning of the Dept. of Homeland Security’s plan to install 450 of the sparkly new terrorist detectors in airports across the nation over the next year.

The scanners, valued at $170,000 each, are just the latest in the “x-ray specs” type of machine, that effectively sees through what passengers are wearing to detect any illicit objects hidden on (or in) their person.

At least some of the money to purchase the scanners came from 2009’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because there’s nothing better at spurring economic growth than dropping nearly $200K apiece on airport scanners.

Since they obviously can’t run all the thousands of passengers at Logan through only 3 scanners, airport security will be using random testing, though those selected may opt for a pat-down over being scanned.

These new “backscatter” type machines are different — and one would hope improved — from the existing “millimeter wave” types already being used in various spots around the country.

Some of you might remember the story from a few weeks back of a millimeter wave machine in Denver being set off by an artificial breast.

Speaking of private parts, the makers of these new machines say the scanners use a software that obscures both face and groin of the scanned subject. So if your scanned torso ends up on the Internet, it’ll be hard to ID you.

Additionally, the machine doesn’t store the images, but discards them after the scan is cleared. And for even less awkwardness, the operator is out of sight from the passenger, so as to avoid hearing the snickering at my one’s love handles.

So where do y’all come down on these new machines — Are the privacy measures sufficient? And do you think these will be effective in stopping terrorism on planes?

U.S. airports expand passenger full-body screening [Reuters]

After yesterday’s story about cyclists being unhappy with United’s exorbitant fee to check bikes on their planes, the folks over at Bicycling wrote to share their breakdown of the best and worst airlines for when you’re taking your wheels with you.

THE BEST:
According to Bicycling, JetBlue, Frontier and Southwest are the bee’s knees, with each charging only $50 for placing your bike on board. Additionally, they note that Frontier will transport your bike by hand from the ticket counter to the plane.

THE WORST:
Because of the sky-high fees, on the following airlines, Bicycling.com doesn’t advise trying to stash your bikes on board: Delta/Northwest ($175); United ($175); American ($100 + regular checked bag fee of $20-$30). Also of concern to United passengers, their weight limit is only 50lbs, so don’t plan on packing your expensive bike in a hard case

NOT AS BAD:
They list U.S. Airways and Continental as “in the middle,” with each charging $100 for your bike. However, U.S. Airways makes you sign a liability waiver and Continental not only has a low weight limit of 70 lbs, they will not offer liability for soft cases.

In addition to rating the airlines, Bicycling also has some helpful tips for travelers:

•Don’t use the bike bag as your suitcase. Some carriers assess both oversize and overweight charges.

•Read your airline’s policy carefully. United, for example, will not take packed bikes over 50 pounds, period. They also charge extra on flights to Japan and Brazil.

•CO2 cartridges are prohibited in all checked bags and carry-ons.

•Checked bag liability usually tops out at $3,300 for domestic flights. Damage must be proved. Check your homeowner’s policy to see if it covers items damaged in travel.

*Finally, it’s an urban myth that your tires will burst in the cargo hold — there’s no need to deflate them.

For the full listing and more tips, go to Bicycling.com.

After the whole Kevin Smith got booted from a Southwest flight for being too fat (or maybe not) thing, the director’s name has quickly become synonymous with being overweight. Just ask the folks at the Jersey City Synergy Fitness.

The gym, located in Smith’s beloved North Jersey, name-checked the Cop Out director on a a large chalkboard marquee outside its front door.

“We help you avoid Kevin Smith-like situations,” read the handwritten sign. And to both clarify their point and get another dig in on the man behind such classics as Jersey Girl and Clerks 2, they add at the bottom, “We’re not referring to uneven-quality film making.”

Consumerist reader Jeremy says he’s recently been barred from entering any Walmart store in the country. Why? Because he politely declined to show his receipt to a greeter.

Rather than try to retell the story, here it is straight from Jeremy’s letter to the folks at Walmart corporate:

In the late afternoon my wife, infant son, and I went to Walmart and bought groceries and three Bluray discs. After paying for our merchandise, upon exiting the store we set off the RFID alarm. The greeter told me that she needed to check my receipt, and I declined such a check, explaining that I had paid for all my merchandise. We continued to walk to our car, where I unloaded our bags and returned my cart. Upon returning to the car, two Walmart Asset Protection employees verbally identified themselves as such (though they wore nothing to visually identify themselves as employees of Walmart) and asked to see my receipt since I had triggered the RFID alarm. I declined, and they insisted that they had a right to see my receipt.

I asked if they were law enforcement officers, and they said “No,” so I again stated that I declined to have my receipt checked, but would be willing to allow a law enforcement officer to see my receipt. At that time, two police officers who were already on the premises walked up, and upon the senior officer’s request for my receipt, I provided it. He handed it to the asset protection employee, who looked it over to his satisfaction and was apparently satisfied that I had not stolen anything.

If the story ended here, I would have nothing to be disappointed about: my right not to submit to a search by a private party was respected, and Walmart’s right to detain suspected shoplifters for a reasonable amount of time while awaiting a law enforcement officer for an investigation (in accordance with the common law concept of Shopkeeper’s Privilege) was also respected. No one’s rights were violated; I was satisfied that my personal rights had been respected, and Walmart’s representatives were satisfied that Walmart’s property rights had been respected.

At this point, however, one of the Asset Protection employees stated to the other (in paraphrase; I do not recall the exact words), “I don’t think we want people like him here, do you think we should ban him?” to which the first replied (again in paraphrase), “Yes, let’s go get the paperwork.” My driver’s license was taken by the police officer and processed. I was asked to sign a notification of trespass by the Walmart employee, and the officer issued me a trespass warning. And so I was banned for life from all Walmart properties. I was very surprised by this decision, since I have never in my life shoplifted, let alone from Walmart. I was neither rude nor belligerent to Walmart employees, nor did I seek in any way to deprive Walmart of its legal right to detain me for a reasonable time while they called police to investigate the matter. I simply insisted politely that my right to refuse a search by a private party be respected. A small, non-invasive search, but a search nonetheless, and one which I am fully within my rights to decline.

It seems odd to me that Walmart chose to ban me even after the Asset Protection employees had verified to their satisfaction that I had not shoplifted. I can only guess that I somehow unintentionally offended someone; I do recall one of the four people I interacted with (I do not know which exactly of the two officers and the two Walmart employees) saying that I was being a “jerk” by insisting that my right not to be searched be respected. Is it Walmart’s policy to ban people who decline to submit to searches they are not legally obligated to submit to?

That letter was sent on Jan. 11 and as of this morning Jeremy had yet to hear back:

I received no response by the end fo February, so I called Customer Relations and asked if they’d received my letter and have now spoken to two employees at my local Walmart where the incident happened. Despite some major confusion over the issue (one employee had no idea I’d even written a letter, and asked me if I was the father of some girl who apparently had been arrested for shoplifting), it was ultimately made clear to me that Walmart had no intention of lifting my ban and apparently does have a policy of banning people who (fully within their legal rights) decline receipt searches.

On his personal website, “natural psychic and Remote Viewer” Sean David Morton claims to have predicted everything from the 1989 San Francisco earthquake to Bill Clinton’s impeachment to the burst of the dotcom bubble. But that doesn’t impress the SEC, who filed a lawsuit against Morton yesterday, alleging that he committed $6 million worth of securities fraud by claiming he could see into the future.

According to the SEC filing:

Morton claimed that he would use his psychic expertise to provide investment guidance to his investing team, and falsely touted his historical success in psychically predicting the various rises and falls of the market. Morton further claimed that he would use the pooled funds to trade in foreign currencies and distribute pro rata the trading profits among the investors. However, Morton lied to investors about his past successes, and about key aspects of the Delphi Investment Group, including the use of investor funds and the liquidity of the funds, and that the profits in the accounts were audited and certified.

Whatever you think of this lawsuit, you should definitely go over to his site to read all about his feature film “Joe Killionaire” and see the many pics of him with celebs ranging from Sting to Moon Unit Zappa.

SEC Sues Pyschic For Securities Fraud [NPR]

While Starbucks has been busy trying to appease both sides of the gun-control debate, they’ve also been busy test-marketing their latest offering, a 31-ounce iced coffee beast known as a “Trenta.”

The bountiful beverage, which can also be an iced tea, is intended to compete against McDonald’s bladder-busting 32-ounce sweet tea that they’ve been offering for only $1.

In Phoenix and Tampa, where they’ve been testing the Trenta, they’ve set a price of $3.30 for the iced coffee and $2.60 for tea.

In a statement about the potential caloric impact on your body from a drink of this size, Starbucks says:

Trenta is only available for iced teas and iced coffees. Unsweetened the beverages are less than 5 calories, but even a sweetened iced coffee or tea in a Trenta cup would be less than 200 calories.

So what do you think?

Update: Starbucks Says the Trenta Won’t Make You Fat [Seattle Weekly]

In a move bound to lure in a few Lent-observing Catholics and give those who keep Kosher another reason to stay away, Taco Bell goes live nationwide today with their new Pacific Shrimp Taco, available through April 11 and the first of three new menu items the fast feeder has in store for us.

According to T-Bell, the Pacific Shrimp Taco “features six succulent shrimp marinated in authentic Mexican spices, crisp lettuce, freshly prepared salsa and avocado ranch sauce.”

The company explains that the company hopes to herald in a new line of higher-end fast food with the shrimp taco and other products.

“While consumers rank Taco Bell as the value leader in QSR [Quick Service Restaurants], we see an opportunity to also offer them high quality products,” Lidija Davidson, director of brand marketing for Taco Bell, explained. “The Pacific Shrimp Taco is just one of many menu items we’re launching that showcase a key quality ingredient.”

After test-marketing the shrimps regionally, Davidson said, “We’re confident that it will help drive quality perceptions among consumers while also bringing exciting product news to the Taco Bell brand.”

Curiously Australian President of Taco Bell Greg Creed recently told investors that the shrimp taco is just the beginning. First, we’ll get the option to scarf down on soft corn tortillas, and pork is being added to the list of meat options. There is talk of adding another, as-yet unspecified protein next year. And because the first thing you want early in the morning is to run for the border, they’re currently testing a breakfast menu.

Consumerist reader Miranda is apparently an avid photo bug, snapping over 2,800 pics on her Sprint phone over the last few years, all of which she’s uploaded to her Sprint Picture Mail account. But a recent update to the Picture Mail site makes it impossible for her to download her pics at once. Which wouldn’t be a problem if she weren’t trying to switch over to to T-Mobile.

Let’s hear it from Miranda herself:

I’m switching to T-Mobile, but I want to download my pictures from Sprint before I close my account with them. The problem is that Sprint has recently redesigned their Picture Mail site and removed the option to download all pictures at once in one zip file.

I called Sprint Customer Service about this and the technical support representative I spoke to confirmed that the batch download feature had been removed and the only way I could download all of my pictures would be to do so individually. I asked if there was any way I could register a complaint to Sprint about this, and she said there was an option to contact Sprint on the Sprint website that I could use.

I called again and spoke to a technical support representative named Mary; I told her the problem I was having and asked if I could speak to a manager about it. She transferred my call to a female manager named Cory; I again explained my issue, and she confirmed that the only way to download my pictures to my computer is to do so one by one. I asked if there was any way I could register a complaint about this without using the Sprint site, and she said she could forward my concerns higher up but she didn’t know when anyone would get back to me about it.

I don’t understand why Sprint would cripple its functionality this way, but I do know that this reduction in features is, at best, an annoyance to the customer, and, at worst (such as in my case), something that completely kills a vital feature of the phone.

We don’t know why Sprint, who continues to bleed customers, would do something to annoy them even further. Any thoughts?

Is anyone really surprised it came to this? A Netflix subscriber isn’t happy about having to wait 28 days for Warner Home Video movies to be made available on the video delivery service, so she’s filed a class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff contends that a deal announced in January between Netflix and Warner that forbids Netflix from sending out any of the studio’s new releases for the first 28 days of its release is a “scheme to restrain trade.” She also states that, by not making available a number of high-profile new releases, her Netflix account has been devalued by the agreement.

MORE FROM CONSUMERIST ON THE AGREEMENT:
Netflix Agrees To Delay Warner Bros. New DVDs For 28 Days
Netflix CEO Explains Why They Made The 28-Day Delay Deal

” target=”_blank”>Susan Uman sues Netflix for making subscibers wait 28 days for newly released DVDs [NY Daily News]