Author: Shawn K. Quinn

A true outrage: marginalizing the poor with lousy customer service

A recent Daily Kos article exposes a very disturbing move by a company called Cable One. From the article:

Cable One considers people with low scores — which can result from late payment, unemployment, a bounced check, or even erroneous credit reporting — to be “hollow value” customers. That means they are not likely to purchase additional products and services from the company (also known as “upselling”); for example, premium movie channel packages or higher speed internet connections. As such, the “hollow” customers don’t merit help with problems and issues because it is an expense, rather than a potential increase in profit, for the company.

The article goes on to say how customer service costs are part of the monthly cable bill, as opposed to being a separate line item. This means, in effect, that the customers with low credit scores (and in most cases, probably lower incomes as well) are not getting the full value of what they have paid for.

If there’s ever been a more outrageous act by a large company, whether a cable TV/internet provider or otherwise, I have yet to see it. That Cable One even thinks that customers’ credit scores are their business on an operational level, outside of things like calculating a deposit requirement to establish or maintain service, is shocking enough. Using it to determine who gets better customer service? That’s insane, and crosses all sorts of moral and ethical lines.

And soon, it might actually be illegal. The FCC is intending to apply Section 222 of the Communications Act to cable companies. Currently, as written, the law is written to apply to “telecommunications carrier(s)” which it would appear was intended to include only telephone companies as of the time the law was written (prior to deregulation, when cable companies could not sell phone service and the phone companies of the day could not sell multichannel video service (cable television)).

However, some interpretations of the definition of “telecommunications” and thus “telecommunications carrier”) would seem to include Internet services as well, especially in light of the fact that it is now feasible to offer phone service over the Internet (voice over IP, or VoIP). I certainly read “telecommunications” as essentially defining the Internet as well as traditional telephone-based services. (Of course, the cable companies will vehemently disagree, because then that means Chapter 222 applies to them, which squashes the shenanigans such as Cable One’s.)

Here’s hoping sanity prevails going forward. The prospect of having to deal with intentionally lousy customer service from my Internet provider is quite unsettling. It’s about just credit scores today, but who knows about tomorrow if the FCC can’t apply Section 222? I’ve written some unflattering things about Comcast in the past. AT&T has also wound up in my crosshairs on a couple of occasions. Right now, these two companies are the main two options for internet access in most of Houston and the surrounding areas (even the Google wi-fi at Starbucks appears to be routed via Comcast and not Google’s own fiber). And no, I’m not going to just shut up about the screwups of Comcast and AT&T. Were I to do so, that would basically be acquiescence to corporate tyranny.

Why is the deep-pocketed NFL looking for Super Bowl volunteers?

In a recent Houston Press story titled “If the NFL Really Needs You, Then Make the NFL Pay for It”, John Royal describes how the Houston Super Bowl Committee is seeking a large number of volunteers to help make the Super Bowl and the festivities around it a success. From the article:

[T]he Houston Super Bowl Committee is seeking volunteers for the game. Ten thousand volunteers, to be exact. You won’t get paid, though, because, duh, you’re a volunteer. You also won’t get to see the game because, duh, you’re a volunteer.

For its volunteers, the Super Bowl committee seeks team players who are open, full of integrity, respectful and strive for excellence. If a person meets those qualifications, then he or she has to attend three training sessions while working 18 to 24 hours the week of the game. Which, when you think of it, is a lot of time to waste for a non-charity event that is going to pull in tons of cash.

If it seems outrageous that the Super Bowl would need volunteers, given that it’s an obvious for-profit event, well, maybe that’s because it is. Given the financial backing and the obscene amount of money the NFL makes from the Super Bowl, there’s money in there to pay people to fill these positions. Ten thousand people working 24 hours each at $10 per hour adds up to $2.4 million. (With a $15 per hour minimum wage it would jump to $3.6 million, which is still not that much money; read on.)

Split evenly between the 32 teams, that $2.4 million comes out to $75,000 per team, or one-sixth of a rookie player’s guaranteed minimum salary ($450,000). Put next to the $3.2 billion the TV networks pay to broadcast the NFL season, that $2.4 million doesn’t look like a whole lot of money at all. In fact it seems like a sensible investment to make sure the event is a success.

It is noteworthy that last year (2015), the NFL gave up non-profit status after criticism came to a head. This makes the decision to solicit volunteers all the more puzzling.

I have been a football fan ever since the Houston Texans brought professional football back to Houston in 2002. But every once in a while, something happens that makes it harder to be a football fan. This is one of those things. It really does not sit well with me that a for-profit event, run by an organization that is for-profit now (at least in the legal sense and for tax purposes), would need to solicit volunteers, which implies that they are unable to pay. Whether tax-exempt or not, the NFL is definitely not a charity.

The only thing that makes sense is that they are simply unwilling to pay, not unable, and yet, I’m sure the NFL and the local committee will get their volunteers anyway. H.L. Mencken was on to something when he famously said “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” The saying of disputed origin “There’s a sucker born every minute” quite possibly applies here as well. (The latter saying has been attributed to P.T. Barnum but was more likely originally said by David Hannum, one of his rivals.)

If you want to volunteer in the Houston area, there are other places to go to find opportunities. Other cities have similar sites and programs. Look before you leap. Don’t give your time away for free to someone who is just looking to make a buck with no charitable purpose.

An extreme case of cosmetic surgery

This is a tricky story to comment on. The reasons why should become apparent as I get into the discussion.

This story in Life & Style from 2016 January shows model Mayra Hills, who goes by the stage name Beshine. Like many other women out there, she got her breasts enlarged surgically. Unlike many other women out there, each of her breasts weigh in at 20 pounds and contain 10,000 cc of saline, and she has an outrageous 32Z bra size. The picture probably says more than I could say in words; her breasts are so big you cannot see her arms in the first picture as taken (which, by the way, is probably as far as you need to go to get the idea even though this was presented as a slideshow of 9 pictures).

My standpoint on body size issues, body modification (tattoos, piercings, cosmetic surgery), and the like has traditionally been supportive of the choice made by the person inside that body. That said, this sort of body modification just doesn’t make any sense, and at least one of the commenters wants to know which surgeon did this “unethical and dangerous” procedure. Another says “They look so painful and unhealthy” (which I am inclined to agree with), another calls it “the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen”.

Continue reading An extreme case of cosmetic surgery

Let’s keep music as our Houston song, please

What the hell are they thinking with this petition?

A recent CW39 Newsfix story details a petition to replace the current Houston song, titled simply “Houston Municipal Song“, which has served us well for over a century (not that it was performed all that much after 1916; the video linked may well have been the first performance of that song in an entire century and change).

Not all change is bad, but the issue I have is what the aural turd they want to replace it with: Tops Drop by Fat Pat. Most of this track isn’t music. At least our current Houston song is actually, um, a song as opposed to a monotone. I’m not even going to bother linking it, it’s that bad, but a video of it is available on YouTube. (Ironically, the minute or so I had to skip to get to the actual track, I probably should have let just play as that was better than when the track actually started.)

If we want a new Houston song that is actually music (and I do emphasize those words on purpose), there are plenty of other candidates per Wikipedia. And I realize that list has a couple of choices in it that I would also disqualify as non-music, but many are still fair game. If we must change, let’s start the deliberations with the Gatlin Brothers tune “Houston (Means That I’m One Day Closer to You)” which got so much airplay on country stations back in the day.

Or one of us could write a new one. Or we could stick with the status quo. I’m fine, as long as the new song still has a melody. Anything but a crap track, please.

Google and payday loan sharks: the past versus the future

For once, Google does something truly worthy of commendation.

This recent story in The Atlantic states that effective in about two months, Google will no longer allow advertisements for companies which make loans due in less than 60 days, or in the US, with interest rates above 36% APR. (I have reviewed the terms for many such loans, and I have yet to see a payday loan or title loan company offer a loan anywhere near as low as 36% APR; usually it’s at least 200% APR, sometimes over 400% APR.)

I am not sure of the reason in the two-month delay in prohibiting the ads, but this is a rare occasion where I believe Google is doing the right thing. Even better, it appears the motivation behind this is completely moral and ethical, as opposed to just avoiding bad PR or lawsuits from end users. From a statement written by David Graff, director of global product policy at Google:

In that vein, today we’re sharing an update that will go into effect on July 13, 2016: we’re banning ads for payday loans and some related products from our ads systems. We will no longer allow ads for loans where repayment is due within 60 days of the date of issue. In the U.S., we are also banning ads for loans with an APR of 36% or higher. When reviewing our policies, research has shown that these loans can result in unaffordable payment and high default rates for users so we will be updating our policies globally to reflect that.

This change is designed to protect our users from deceptive or harmful financial products and will not affect companies offering loans such as Mortgages, Car Loans, Student Loans, Commercial loans, Revolving Lines of Credit (e.g. Credit Cards).

[…]

[O]ur hope is that fewer people will be exposed to misleading or harmful products.

Now, I will concede that it was perhaps not the brightest move for what was at the time called Google Ventures, now called GV (the venture-capital arm of what used to be Google, Inc., now Alphabet, Inc.), to provide some of the seed funding for LendUp back in 2013. (One of LendUp’s products is short-term, high-APR loans of the sort which won’t be able to be advertised on Google when the new rules take effect. LendUp’s other products are not nearly as predatory, and I have even applied for their credit card not too long ago. Still, a lot of people criticize LendUp for their high-APR short-term loans and I don’t blame them.)

GV would probably like to have that one back now, and I don’t blame them. There is a Chinese proverb which states “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second best time is now.” I think a form of that certainly applies here. GV can’t fix the past, but Google can certainly make a move towards a better future. Even the best companies make mistakes: Ford’s Edsel marque, New Coke, the 1960-1963 Chevrolet Corvair just to name a few. While GV and Google are completely independent of each other now, it is my hope this move signals a true change in direction going forward for all companies under the Alphabet umbrella.