Tesla Will Probably Charge Model 3 Owners For Using Supercharging Stations

While current Tesla owners can drive up to any one of the Supercharging stations in the company’s network, plug in, and fill up on electricity for free, future owners of Model 3 cars probably won’t be able to enjoy that same service without paying for it.

CEO Elon Musk said it’s the “obvious” thing to charge Model 3 owners to fill up on electricity, but says it’s not going to be more expensive than gassing up.

“Free Supercharging fundamentally has a cost,” Musk said during Tesla’s annual shareholders meeting, as reported by Bloomberg (warning: link contains video that autoplays). “The obvious thing to do is decouple that from the cost of the Model 3. So it will still be very cheap, and far cheaper than gasoline, to drive long-distance with the Model 3, but it will not be free long distance for life unless you purchase that package.”

He didn’t elaborate on how much such a package could cost to use any of the 632 Superchargers Tesla has sprinkled around the world.

“The best thing to do is to charge your car where you charge your phone: at home and at work,” said Musk.

Musk Says It’s ‘Obvious’ Model 3 Owners to Pay for Superchargers [Bloomberg]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Report: Only Some Progress In Making Sure Clothing Factory Workers Are Treated Like Humans

Three years ago, after a building collapse in Bangladesh killed 1,100 of the people who were making our clothes, major global retailers pledged to make sure that the people who work for their suppliers are paid a living wage and have safe workplaces. A new report shows that while some things have improved at factories that supply retailers like Walmart and H&M, there are still serious labor and safety issues in these companies’ supply chains.

In 2013, pledging to protect workers in developing countries, particularly Bangladesh, was hot, with some retailers signing a legally binding accord to inspect and correct safety issues at factories that supply their stores.

Separately, Walmart performed its own inspections, making the results public. Yet according to the Asia Floor Wage Alliance, a coalition of unions and worker advocates, global retailers’ supply chains are so broad and complex that many workers are still left behind.

Walmart, for one, began its own programs to inspect supplier factories and make sure that employees have basic safety protections like access to fire exits in case the facility becomes a lint-filled tinderbox. Yet the Alliance says that factories in Bangladesh that supply Walmart force workers to sew for 10-14 hours every day in hot rooms, with no breaks or access to drinkable water. Depending on the weather, the Alliance says, “mass fainting spells” happen.

When contacted about the Cambodia allegations, a Walmart representative told the New York Times that the company doesn’t own facilities in Cambodia or Bangladesh, which is true: the problem is the network of contractors and subcontractors that bid for the work and then find the cheapest labor possible.

The Asia Floor Wage Alliance had harsh words for Swedish company H&M, too, with a representative noting, “At this point, we do not see H&M working in a way that would prevent another Rana Plaza.” That was the building collapse that killed 1,100 factory workers.

Precarious Work in the Walmart Global Value Chain [Asia Floor Wage]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Former Trump University Managers Call Out “Dishonest” Program In Unsealed Testimony

Newly unsealed testimony from a lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump University appears to indicate that employees at the real estate training program were more focused on upselling students on additional seminars than they were on providing a bona fide education.

“Trump University would lure consumers into the initial free course based upon the name and reputation of Donald Trump, and then once they were there, Trump University personnel would try to up-sell consumers to the next course using high-pressure sales tactics,” reads the testimony [PDF] of a former events manager who worked for the school in 2007. “Far from providing a ‘complete real estate education,’ as advertised, Trump University personnel only provided enough information to get students to sign up for the next seminar or program.”

According to this former manager, the school’s speakers, instructors, and mentors — who were described in advertising materials as being personally selected by Mr. Trump — lacked any experience in the real estate market.

“Many of them did not even own houses, and had no experience buying or selling real estate,” she recalled in her testimony from Sept. 2012, pointing to one instructor whose previous experience was in jewelry sales.

Regarding the marketing claims of Mr. Trump handpicking the school’s instructors, the events manager alleges that this was far from the truth.

“I believe that in many instances Donald Trump had neither met the instructors or mentors, nor did he know who they were,” she explained, contending that the school hired most of its mentors and speakers through a third party based in New Hampshire.

Additionally, she says these outside hires appeared to have more training in high-pressure sales tactics than in real estate, claiming that two of them had to be fired “because they kept trying to get Trump University students to invest in their own personal businesses.”

She claims that instructors were trained to tell students in one $1,500 seminar to call their credit card companies and raise their credit limits two, three, or four times so that they would be able to invest in real estate.

“They would tell students to max out their credit card because they would make their money back,” says the former events manager. “I recall that some consumers had showed up who were homeless and could not afford the seminars, yet I overheard Trump University representatives telling them, “it’s ok; just max out your credit card.” I also witnessed representatives instructing consumers to charge the course to multiple credit cards if they lacked a high enough limit on one credit card to pay for the seminar. In fact, I recall representatives telling consumers to open up as many credit cards as they could to increase their credit score.”

In more damning testimony [PDF], a sales manager who worked for Trump University in 2006 and 2007 claims he left his job because he believed that Trump University was “engaging in misleading, fraudulent and dishonest conduct.”

He says he was reprimanded after he tried to advise a couple to not take the school’s $35,000 Elite program because they would have had to taken out a home equity loan and used the husband’s disability income to pay for the seminar.

Eventually, according to the former sales manager, another sales rep convinced the couple to take the pricey class. “I was disgusted by this conduct and decided to resign.”

“Based on my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed on the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money,” he concluded.

Another unsealed declaration [PDF] from a former Trump University sales executive echoes many of the other sentiments, labeling the instructors as “a joke” and claiming that sales staff were told to focus on getting people to sign up for increasingly expensive courses.

Additionally, he claims that Trump University “used testimonials that were false, misleading and fabricated. Testimonials were not expected results and were not realistic.”

While the former employees all claim that Mr. Trump had little to no involvement in the day-to-day running of Trump University, testimony from the Trump U. president Michael Sexton gives a better idea of the involvement of the program’s namesake.

Sexton, in testimony from Aug. 2012, recalled that he and his partners were initially going to license the Trump name for their program, but that Mr. Trump ultimately chose to take an equity stake in the University because “he thought it was a compelling concept” and didn’t want to be an “arm’s length” licensor.

According to the testimony, Mr. Trump was involved in approving marketing and ad materials because he “is protective of his brand and very protective of his image and how he’s portrayed… he wanted to see how his brand and image were portrayed in Trump University marketing materials. And he had very good and substantive input as well.”

This particular lawsuit against Trump University is expected to go to trial in November. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denied allegations of wrongdoing and has said he believes he will ultimately prevail.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Report: Carmakers Continue To Equip Vehicles With Defective Takata Airbags

Fourteen automakers have recalled nearly 40 million vehicles equipped with more than 80 million defective Takata airbags that can deploy with enough force to shoot pieces of shrapnel at drivers and passengers, leading to 10 deaths in the U.S. and hundreds of injuries. While the Japanese parts maker, federal regulators, and carmakers have worked to replace these dangerous safety devices, a new report reveals that at least four carmakers continue to equip new vehicles with affected airbags. 

Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Mitsubishi confirmed in a new report [PDF] from Florida Senator Bill Nelson that they are selling some new vehicles with defective airbags that must be recalled by 2018.

There currently is no law prohibiting the carmakers from using the Takata airbags in the vehicles and then selling them, as the recall isn’t technically effective for two more years.

However, Sen. Nelson and others are raising concerns that consumers may not be aware they are purchasing a vehicle that could contain a dangerous defect.

“What’s troubling here is that consumers are buying new cars not realizing they’re going to be recalled,” Nelson said in a statement. “These cars shouldn’t be sold until they’re fixed.”

According to the report, the four carmakers’ vehicle models contain Takata’s ammonium nitrate-based propellant in driver and passenger frontal airbag inflators without a chemical drying agent, also known as a desiccant.

Investigators’ previous determination that the root cause of the violent ruptures was a combination of three factors: time, environmental moisture, and fluctuating high temperatures contribute to the degradation of the ammonium nitrate propellant in the inflators.

Only two of the four automakers provided a list of new vehicles that contain the defective airbags. Those models are: 2016 Mitsubishi i-MiEV; 2017 Mitsubishi i-MiEV; 2016 Volkswagen CC; 2016 Audi TT; and 2017 Audi R8.

Toyota said it expects to produce approximately 175,000 unspecified vehicles with the defective Takata inflators between March 2016 and July 2017, while Fiat Chrysler stated that at least one of its current models contains a frontal passenger-side airbag that uses the non-desiccated ammonium-nitrate inflators. Neither carmaker specified the models affected.

Honda, which previously said it could produce as many as 17,000 new vehicles with the airbags tells Nelson’s office that no new models are or will be equipped with the inflators.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration previously ordered Takata and automakers to recall these airbags in phases. The airbags currently being used in new the Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Mitsubishi models are earmarked to be recalled by 2018.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Airbnb Debuts Complaint Center For Neighbors To Sound Off On Bad Guests

In the old days, if you wanted to complain about a noisy neighbor’s guests you’d either have to storm over there in your nightgown in person, call the police, or gossip meanly with your fellow neighbors. There’s another option now for folks disturbed by rowdy visitors to the neighborhood, with Airbnb’s new online complaint center.

The company revealed back in March that it was working on a tool to allow people to report problem guests staying nearby, and today, it announced that its Airbnb Neighbors complaint portal is open for business.

Noting that the “overwhelming majority of Airbnb guests are respectful travelers,” which means “complaints and issues are incredibly rare,” Airbnb says it wants to be able to help community members be good neighbors wherever hosts live.

Starting today, if you have a specific concern with a listing in your neighborhood — noise complaints, large jungle cats roaming around, the usual — you can log it on Airbnb.com/neighbors. From there, the company will review the concern and follow up with the host if necessary.

You can submit information anonymously, or let the team share your contact information if you want the host to follow up directly.

“We’ll treat each case seriously and ensure that we give hosts and their neighbors the opportunity to resolve concerns themselves, whenever possible,” Airbnb says, adding that those who “repeatedly” fail to meet its standards and expectations “will be subject to suspension or removal from the Airbnb community.”

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

AT&T CEO Says He Can’t Deploy Robocall Blockers Without FCC Approval. He’s Wrong

On his personal phone line, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson blocks unwanted, pre-recorded and auto-dialed robocalls. So why is Darth Randy not making this technology available for all of his customers? He claims it’s because he needs the FCC’s permission to do so, but the FCC says that just isn’t so.

Last week, in a surprisingly candid interview with the Dallas Morning News’ Dave Lieber, Stephenson admitted that he hates robocalls just as much as the rest of us.

“Let’s do a quick audit of Randall’s recent calls,” said the Sith Lord, speaking of himself in the third person. “You see all these numbers that don’t have a name attached to them? Those are robocalls I’m getting. All of those.”

While Stephenson does not describe how he blocks robocalls on his personal line, he says his company — under pressure from the hundreds of thousands of Americans who signed the Consumers Union End Robocalls petition — is looking at possible options for its more than 100 million customers.

“There are some solutions out there,” he said. “One was brought to me a couple of weeks ago. It’s a solution that’s on the handset. I said, ‘Timeout. Can we put it in the network, not the handset?’”

Now here’s where things get a bit confusing. When asked why AT&T isn’t just deploying these solutions — or at least giving subscribers the option to turn the blockers on if they so choose — the CEO points the finger at those pesky regulators in D.C., claiming AT&T needs the FCC’s approval to deploy robo-blockers.

“We don’t go in and just start discriminately blocking calls going to people without their permission, without the appropriate authority,” explained Stephenson. “I don’t want to be on the front page because we blocked somebody’s call, if it was a life-saving call of some kind, right?”

Let’s break down this statement a bit: No one is asking AT&T to just start blocking calls without telling anyone. They just want the ability to use a call-blocker.

Additionally, while services like Nomorobo work by using a user-defined, crowdsourced “blacklist” of suspected bad numbers, they also whitelist numbers for things like emergency services so that urgent calls don’t accidentally get blocked.

In January, Time Warner Cable gave its millions of landline phone customers the option to turn Nomorobo on or off at the click of a button, and Consumerist has learned that Verizon recently launched a similar easy-to-use integration of Nomorobo for its FiOS customers — and all of this was done without having to go through any FCC approval process.

Just to make sure that there wasn’t some sort of robo-blocking vetting process that was going on behind closed doors, we asked the FCC directly about Stephenson’s assertion.

“The FCC has made clear that there are no legal obstacles to carriers offering consumers Robocall-blocking services,” a rep for the Commission tells Consumerist. “The Chairman has repeatedly called on carriers to begin offering these services. We strongly encourage them to do so.”

In the interview, Stephenson said that “There will be rules” coming from the FCC regarding robo-blockers, but thus far the Commission has given no indication that it has any interest or plans in going through the rulemaking process.

The important thing, according to sources familiar with the FCC’s view on this issue, is that AT&T and other carriers make blocking services available, and that they inform subscribers about their options and any limitations these blockers might place on their phone service.

In a statement to Consumerist, a rep for AT&T clarifies what Stephenson really meant to say.

“Last year, the FCC gave us authority to implement technology to allow consumer-initiated robocall blocking. However, there are no technologies currently available that can accurately distinguish illegal robocalls from legitimate calls, which could include emergency calls,” reads the statement. “In fact, many robocallers even spoof legitimate phone numbers, making it even more challenging. As a matter of law, we don’t have permission to block legitimate calls – that is a violation of the Communications Act. We’re continuing our work to find a solution that can identify illegal robocalls 100% of the time. Until then, we cannot risk blocking legitimate calls from consumers. But in the interim, although not a perfect solution, consumers can use apps like Nomorobo to block these calls.”

What AT&T doesn’t mention is that it already offers a call-blocker on landline service… for $8.50/month. It’s limited, in that you can only block 10 numbers, but it also blocks all anonymous callers. Given that legitimate calls may be coming from anonymous numbers, that seems to contradict the idea at AT&T is holding out for some sort of pure 100% no-errors ideal.

Of course, even if AT&T screwed up and deployed a horrible call-blocker that caused you to miss only important calls, you couldn’t sue the company. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion upheld the use of forced arbitration clauses and class-action bans in customer contracts. So not only can’t you take AT&T to court if it breaks the law, you can’t enter into a group arbitration with other AT&T customers.

So when AT&T claims that it only wants to deploy a service that is 100% accurate, remember that this is also the company that also wants you to believe that forced arbitration “benefits consumers.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Survey Says: You Still Hate Your Cable Company, But Maybe A Little Less Than Before

A major annual consumer satisfaction survey is out, and it’s a mixed bag for the cable and telecom sector and all of us who use it. The bad: pay-TV, broadband, phone, and wireless companies still pretty much really suck, and most of us are very dissatisfied with them. The good: year over year, most of them are finally starting to suck less than they used to!

That news comes from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which for several years has been ranking, as you would think, Americans’ overall customer satisfaction with several companies and industries. Their annual telecommunications report (PDF) is always an interesting read, because it’s where you find all the really awful numbers.

Last year, for example, Time Warner Cable managed to capture the lowest score of any company, not just of telecom providers — and that was just a repeat of its 2014 performance. Comcast and Charter — now TWC’s parent company — were also at the back of the pack last year, generally leaving their subscribers feeling somewhere between miserable and displeased.

So how does the situation look this year? As ACSI Managing Director David VanAmburg said in a statement: “It’s not too hard for cable companies to improve when their starting point is the cellar.”

Verizon FiOS has retained its position as favorite pay-TV service in the ACSI, dropping only one point from last year in satisfaction. However, even the best-in-class position still only means a score of 70/100. (That’s a C-, for most of us, though at least a passing grade.)

AT&T’s U-verse service and DirecTV satellite service come in right behind FiOS, with scores of 69 and 68 respectively. Dish is right behind them with a 67, and Bright House Networks — about to be part of Charter — rounds out the top five with a 66.

We do have to give some credit to Comcast: apparently the action plan for sucking less the company put into place a year ago has paid off. While the cable giant still ranks in the bottom half of all the cable companies (7th place out of 12), they have seen a dramatic improvement in their score. Where in 2015 they received a 54/100, this year they’re up to 62/100. Time Warner Cable, too, saw a similar percentage improvement from last year — but went only from 51/100 in 2015 to 59/100 this year.

Pay-TV is in a precarious position: with cord-cutting on the rise, they have to work hard to retain video customers. Unfortunately, the same level of improvement does not have to apply to broadband services, where those same companies largely enjoy local monopoly status.

FiOS is at the top of the internet charts just as it was for TV, managing to hit 73 out of 100 for satisfaction there. Cablevision comes in second, with a 69, and Bright House and Time Warner Cable — again, both shortly to be Charter — also hit the top five at 67 and 66. (Charter itself comes in at 63/100, which is actually a significant improvement over last year’s abysmal 57.)

But here, alas, is where we still see where Comcast earns its loathing: the giant ISP sees 5% improvement over its 2015 score, but still manages only to scrape up a 59/100. Still, better to be Comcast than Frontier: the bottom-ranking ISP has lost 8% from last year, rounding out the list with a 56/100.

In general, it seems we find the actual internet-service part of “internet service provider” to be acceptable, and our bills to be pretty straightforward… but when it comes to having to call and talk to someone, we’re sick and tired of phone tree hell.

Lack of competition is what triggers poor service, higher prices, and more dissatisfaction, says the ACSI. “Innovation tends to be strongest in markets with multiple companies vying for consumer preference,” said Claes Fornell, founder and Chairman of ACSI.

And that doesn’t describe all parts of the telecom industry equally well: “There are numerous wireless carriers and plenty of different cell phones to choose from. The same is not true for pay TV and ISPs, where consumers are usually beholden to a duopoly.”

by Kate Cox via Consumerist