Consumer News & Warnings
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
No money down
Unpaid internships are a slippery slope. I have changed my view on them, now feeling that NOemployer should exploit the efforts of a young person. Be forewarned.
The New York Times
May 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Take This Internship and Shove It
By ANYA KAMENETZ
MY younger sister has just arrived in New Orleans for the summer after her freshman year at Yale. She will be consuming daily snowballs, the local icy treat, to ward off the heat, volunteering to help clean up neighborhoods damaged by Hurricane Katrina and working part time, for pay, at both a literary festival and a local restaurant. Meanwhile, most of her friends from college are headed for the new standard summer experience: the unpaid internship.
Instead of starting out in the mailroom for a pittance, this generation reports for business upstairs without pay. A national survey by Vault, a career information Web site, found that 84 percent of college students in April planned to complete at least one internship before graduating. Also according to Vault, about half of all internships are unpaid.
I was an unpaid intern at a newspaper from March 2002, my senior year, until a few months after graduation. I took it for granted, as most students do, that working without pay was the best possible preparation for success; parents usually agree to subsidize their offspring's internships on this basis. But what if we're wrong?
What if the growth of unpaid internships is bad for the labor market and for individual careers?
Let's look at the risks to the lowly intern. First there are opportunity costs. Lost wages and living expenses are significant considerations for the two-thirds of students who need loans to get through college. Since many internships are done for credit and some even cost money for the privilege of placement overseas or on Capitol Hill, those students who must borrow to pay tuition are going further into debt for internships.
Second, though their duties range from the menial to quasi-professional, unpaid internships are not jobs, only simulations. And fake jobs are not the best preparation for real jobs.
Long hours on your feet waiting tables may not be particularly edifying, but they teach you that work is a routine of obligation, relieved by external reward, where you contribute value to a larger enterprise. Newspapers and business magazines are full of articles expressing exasperation about how the Millennial-generation employee supposedly expects work to be exciting immediately, wears flip-flops to the office and has no taste for dues-paying. However true this stereotype may be, the spread of the artificially fun internship might very well be adding fuel to it.
By the same token, internships promote overidentification with employers: I make sacrifices to work free, therefore I must love my work. A sociologist at the University of Washington, Gina Neff, who has studied the coping strategies of interns in communications industries, calls the phenomenon "performative passion." Perhaps this emotion helps explain why educated workers in this country are less and less likely to organize, even as full-time jobs with benefits go the way of the Pinto.
Although it's not being offered this year, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s Union Summer internship program, which provides a small stipend, has shaped thousands of college-educated career organizers. And yet interestingly, the percentage of young workers who hold an actual union card is less than 5 percent, compared with an overall national private-sector union rate of 12.5 percent. How are twentysomethings ever going to win back health benefits and pension plans when they learn to be grateful to work for nothing?
So an internship doesn't teach you everything you need to know about coping in today's working world. What effect does it have on the economy as a whole?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not identify interns or track the economic impact of unpaid internships. But we can do a quick-and-dirty calculation: according to Princeton Review's "Internship Bible," there were 100,000 internship positions in 2005. Let's assume that out of those, 50,000 unpaid interns are employed full time for 12 weeks each summer at an average minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. That's a nearly $124 million yearly contribution to the welfare of corporate America.
In this way, unpaid interns are like illegal immigrants. They create an oversupply of people willing to work for low wages, or in the case of interns, literally nothing. Moreover, a recent survey by Britain's National Union of Journalists found that an influx of unpaid graduates kept wages down and patched up the gaps left by job cuts.
There may be more subtle effects as well. In an information economy, productivity is based on the best people finding the jobs best suited for their talents, and interns interfere with this cultural capitalism. They fly in the face of meritocracy — you must be rich enough to work without pay to get your foot in the door. And they enhance the power of social connections over ability to match people with desirable careers. A 2004 study of business graduates at a large mid-Atlantic university found that the completion of an internship helped people find jobs faster but didn't increase their confidence that those jobs were a good fit.
With all this said, the intern track is not coming to an end any time soon. More and more colleges are requiring some form of internship for graduation. Still, if you must do an internship, research shows you will get more out of it if you find a paid one.
A 1998 survey of nearly 700 employers by the Institute on Education and the Economy at Columbia University's Teachers College found: "Compared to unpaid internships, paid placements are strongest on all measures of internship quality. The quality measures are also higher for those firms who intend to hire their interns." This shouldn't be too surprising — getting hired and getting paid are what work, in the real world, is all about.
Anya Kamenetz, a columnist for The Village Voice, is the author of "Generation Debt."
###
¶ Wednesday, May 31, 2006 0 comments
The New York Times
May 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Take This Internship and Shove It
By ANYA KAMENETZ
MY younger sister has just arrived in New Orleans for the summer after her freshman year at Yale. She will be consuming daily snowballs, the local icy treat, to ward off the heat, volunteering to help clean up neighborhoods damaged by Hurricane Katrina and working part time, for pay, at both a literary festival and a local restaurant. Meanwhile, most of her friends from college are headed for the new standard summer experience: the unpaid internship.
Instead of starting out in the mailroom for a pittance, this generation reports for business upstairs without pay. A national survey by Vault, a career information Web site, found that 84 percent of college students in April planned to complete at least one internship before graduating. Also according to Vault, about half of all internships are unpaid.
I was an unpaid intern at a newspaper from March 2002, my senior year, until a few months after graduation. I took it for granted, as most students do, that working without pay was the best possible preparation for success; parents usually agree to subsidize their offspring's internships on this basis. But what if we're wrong?
What if the growth of unpaid internships is bad for the labor market and for individual careers?
Let's look at the risks to the lowly intern. First there are opportunity costs. Lost wages and living expenses are significant considerations for the two-thirds of students who need loans to get through college. Since many internships are done for credit and some even cost money for the privilege of placement overseas or on Capitol Hill, those students who must borrow to pay tuition are going further into debt for internships.
Second, though their duties range from the menial to quasi-professional, unpaid internships are not jobs, only simulations. And fake jobs are not the best preparation for real jobs.
Long hours on your feet waiting tables may not be particularly edifying, but they teach you that work is a routine of obligation, relieved by external reward, where you contribute value to a larger enterprise. Newspapers and business magazines are full of articles expressing exasperation about how the Millennial-generation employee supposedly expects work to be exciting immediately, wears flip-flops to the office and has no taste for dues-paying. However true this stereotype may be, the spread of the artificially fun internship might very well be adding fuel to it.
By the same token, internships promote overidentification with employers: I make sacrifices to work free, therefore I must love my work. A sociologist at the University of Washington, Gina Neff, who has studied the coping strategies of interns in communications industries, calls the phenomenon "performative passion." Perhaps this emotion helps explain why educated workers in this country are less and less likely to organize, even as full-time jobs with benefits go the way of the Pinto.
Although it's not being offered this year, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s Union Summer internship program, which provides a small stipend, has shaped thousands of college-educated career organizers. And yet interestingly, the percentage of young workers who hold an actual union card is less than 5 percent, compared with an overall national private-sector union rate of 12.5 percent. How are twentysomethings ever going to win back health benefits and pension plans when they learn to be grateful to work for nothing?
So an internship doesn't teach you everything you need to know about coping in today's working world. What effect does it have on the economy as a whole?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not identify interns or track the economic impact of unpaid internships. But we can do a quick-and-dirty calculation: according to Princeton Review's "Internship Bible," there were 100,000 internship positions in 2005. Let's assume that out of those, 50,000 unpaid interns are employed full time for 12 weeks each summer at an average minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. That's a nearly $124 million yearly contribution to the welfare of corporate America.
In this way, unpaid interns are like illegal immigrants. They create an oversupply of people willing to work for low wages, or in the case of interns, literally nothing. Moreover, a recent survey by Britain's National Union of Journalists found that an influx of unpaid graduates kept wages down and patched up the gaps left by job cuts.
There may be more subtle effects as well. In an information economy, productivity is based on the best people finding the jobs best suited for their talents, and interns interfere with this cultural capitalism. They fly in the face of meritocracy — you must be rich enough to work without pay to get your foot in the door. And they enhance the power of social connections over ability to match people with desirable careers. A 2004 study of business graduates at a large mid-Atlantic university found that the completion of an internship helped people find jobs faster but didn't increase their confidence that those jobs were a good fit.
With all this said, the intern track is not coming to an end any time soon. More and more colleges are requiring some form of internship for graduation. Still, if you must do an internship, research shows you will get more out of it if you find a paid one.
A 1998 survey of nearly 700 employers by the Institute on Education and the Economy at Columbia University's Teachers College found: "Compared to unpaid internships, paid placements are strongest on all measures of internship quality. The quality measures are also higher for those firms who intend to hire their interns." This shouldn't be too surprising — getting hired and getting paid are what work, in the real world, is all about.
Anya Kamenetz, a columnist for The Village Voice, is the author of "Generation Debt."
###
¶ Wednesday, May 31, 2006 0 comments
Monday, May 29, 2006
Home Ownership vs. Renting
I, too, am guilty of not wanting to buy, but to keep renting. This may change my mind. Be forewarned.
The New York Times
May 28, 2006
In the Region
Today, Homeownership Is Next to Godliness
By LISA PREVOST
MARGUERITE WILLIAMS always wanted to own a home in Bridgeport, Conn., the Fairfield County city where she grew up, but it took a gentle nudge from the pastor of her church to move her out of her rental rut.
It wasn't a lack of money that held her back — she works in admissions at Southern Connecticut State University —as much as a lack of information. A widow for more than 20 years, Ms. Williams feared that someone would talk her into a bad decision, or that the cost of keeping up a property would be more than she could handle.
Last year, however, after attending a church-hosted orientation on home buying, Ms. Williams followed up with a volunteer financial counselor, who worked out a step-by-step plan for resolving her credit issues and applying for a mortgage.
"They showed me I could almost do the same thing purchasing as renting," Ms. Williams said in the four-room co-op she bought for $54,000 at Seaside Village Homes, a community of green-shuttered brick houses a few blocks from Seaside Park in Bridgeport. "Once you start going through it, you find, 'Ohhh, it's not as hard as I thought it was.' "
Churches serving minority communities throughout the region are reaching out to people like Ms. Williams who, though perhaps financially capable of buying a home, are unsure how to go about it.
In the past few years, Freddie Mac, the federally chartered financier of mortgage loans, has joined with churches, community development corporations and lenders to initiate faith-based efforts aimed at increasing rates of minority homeownership in Bridgeport, Queens and central New Jersey.
While the homeownership rate for the nation as a whole is approaching 70 percent, according to the Bureau of the Census, fewer than 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic families own their own homes.
Surveys and focus groups conducted by Freddie Mac show that a primary cause of the gap is uncertainty within minority communities about whom to trust in the home buying process, said Craig Nickerson, vice president of the corporation's Expanding Markets division.
"We needed to find an emissary they trust to help them take the first step, and we found it to be the faith community," he said. Members of the clergy involved in the initiatives vigorously preach the virtues of self-sufficiency and the financial benefits of homeownership at Sunday services, an aspect of their ministry that they say is critical to stabilizing their communities and halting generational cycles of poverty.
"For a church not to deal with the economic plight of its people is a dereliction of its responsibility," said the Rev. Mitchell Taylor, pastor of Center of Hope International and chairman of the East River Development Alliance (ERDA), a nonprofit organization that recently began a homeownership initiative in western Queens.
The Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center, a 7,000-member congregation in Sayreville, N.J., started its ownership program three years ago through its nonprofit affiliate, the Faith Fellowship Community Development Corporation.
Some 300 people a year go through the education program, which includes financial literacy coaching to "give people the tools to improve their credit, and to take responsibility for it," said the Rev. Clarence Bulluck, the corporation's founder and executive director.
Though the three programs operate somewhat differently, the basic structure is similar: sponsoring churches serve as the host of weeknight orientation sessions on home buying, where participants are encouraged to enroll in a more comprehensive education program developed by Freddie Mac. Financial counselors — typically trained church volunteers or community development corporation employees — review each participant's credit history and, in one-on-one sessions, help them plan how to pay off debt barring access to a mortgage.
In addition to supplying the curriculum, Freddie Mac provides seed money as what Mr. Nickerson calls "a one-time kick start" — $35,000 in Bridgeport's case — to pay for marketing materials and staff training. Partner banks provide access to flexible mortgages with low down payments.
The key element, however, is the churches, which promote the program to their members, who in turn spread the word. About 10 African-American and Hispanic churches are involved in the Bridgeport initiative, now a year old, run by the Faith Community Development Corporation, an affiliate of Shiloh Baptist Church.
"We're getting to people who are credit-injured or have what I would call a down payment disability — that's the preacher in me," said the Rev. Carl McCluster, a consultant on faith-based initiatives and the pastor at Shiloh, where Ms. Williams is one of about 250 members.
More than 200 people have either gone through or are enrolled in the education program, according to Bridgette Russell, the interim director. Six people have closed on homes so far, but, she said, the number would be higher if home prices were lower.
"One of the greatest frustrations is you can get a person to address credit delinquencies and have sufficient savings to technically qualify for a mortgage," Ms. Russell said, "but the housing market's prices are limiting what people can do.
Housing costs are also a sticking point at the ERDA Homes program in Long Island City, Queens. "The reality is, it is hard," Pastor Taylor said. "But the unique thing about our program is that we're going to stay with you. If you work hard and play by the rules, I believe you can find a place."
ERDA Homes targets some of the neediest New Yorkers: the roughly 15,000 residents of the Queensbridge public housing development, as well as the estimated 15,000 more who live in Ravenswood, Woodside and Astoria public housing. While the end goal is homeownership, ERDA's larger aim is to build financial knowledge within a population where, surveys have shown, roughly 30 percent of residents don't even have bank accounts.
Since a clergy coalition and tenants associations began promoting the ERDA program about six months ago, about 100 residents have developed personal financial action plans, 104 have opened bank accounts and eight have been preapproved for mortgages of $130,000 to $250,000.
Rosemary Allette, who lives at Ravenswood, credits her financial counselor at ERDA with giving her the confidence to begin working toward mortgage approval.
An employee of the State Department of Education, Ms. Allette, 46, said the program motivated her to rein in her spending: she takes a bag lunch to the office, stays away from the shopping center across the street, pays her bills the day they arrive and has a set sum deducted from her paycheck for deposit into her savings. She has also paid off some old medical bills and had a $4,000 judgment removed from her credit report.
After 20 years of living in public housing, Ms. Allette said, "I'm saving up for, if not a house, at least for a co-op or a condo, something tangible, something to show for all my hard work all these years."
###
¶ Monday, May 29, 2006 0 comments
The New York Times
May 28, 2006
In the Region
Today, Homeownership Is Next to Godliness
By LISA PREVOST
MARGUERITE WILLIAMS always wanted to own a home in Bridgeport, Conn., the Fairfield County city where she grew up, but it took a gentle nudge from the pastor of her church to move her out of her rental rut.
It wasn't a lack of money that held her back — she works in admissions at Southern Connecticut State University —as much as a lack of information. A widow for more than 20 years, Ms. Williams feared that someone would talk her into a bad decision, or that the cost of keeping up a property would be more than she could handle.
Last year, however, after attending a church-hosted orientation on home buying, Ms. Williams followed up with a volunteer financial counselor, who worked out a step-by-step plan for resolving her credit issues and applying for a mortgage.
"They showed me I could almost do the same thing purchasing as renting," Ms. Williams said in the four-room co-op she bought for $54,000 at Seaside Village Homes, a community of green-shuttered brick houses a few blocks from Seaside Park in Bridgeport. "Once you start going through it, you find, 'Ohhh, it's not as hard as I thought it was.' "
Churches serving minority communities throughout the region are reaching out to people like Ms. Williams who, though perhaps financially capable of buying a home, are unsure how to go about it.
In the past few years, Freddie Mac, the federally chartered financier of mortgage loans, has joined with churches, community development corporations and lenders to initiate faith-based efforts aimed at increasing rates of minority homeownership in Bridgeport, Queens and central New Jersey.
While the homeownership rate for the nation as a whole is approaching 70 percent, according to the Bureau of the Census, fewer than 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic families own their own homes.
Surveys and focus groups conducted by Freddie Mac show that a primary cause of the gap is uncertainty within minority communities about whom to trust in the home buying process, said Craig Nickerson, vice president of the corporation's Expanding Markets division.
"We needed to find an emissary they trust to help them take the first step, and we found it to be the faith community," he said. Members of the clergy involved in the initiatives vigorously preach the virtues of self-sufficiency and the financial benefits of homeownership at Sunday services, an aspect of their ministry that they say is critical to stabilizing their communities and halting generational cycles of poverty.
"For a church not to deal with the economic plight of its people is a dereliction of its responsibility," said the Rev. Mitchell Taylor, pastor of Center of Hope International and chairman of the East River Development Alliance (ERDA), a nonprofit organization that recently began a homeownership initiative in western Queens.
The Faith Fellowship Ministries World Outreach Center, a 7,000-member congregation in Sayreville, N.J., started its ownership program three years ago through its nonprofit affiliate, the Faith Fellowship Community Development Corporation.
Some 300 people a year go through the education program, which includes financial literacy coaching to "give people the tools to improve their credit, and to take responsibility for it," said the Rev. Clarence Bulluck, the corporation's founder and executive director.
Though the three programs operate somewhat differently, the basic structure is similar: sponsoring churches serve as the host of weeknight orientation sessions on home buying, where participants are encouraged to enroll in a more comprehensive education program developed by Freddie Mac. Financial counselors — typically trained church volunteers or community development corporation employees — review each participant's credit history and, in one-on-one sessions, help them plan how to pay off debt barring access to a mortgage.
In addition to supplying the curriculum, Freddie Mac provides seed money as what Mr. Nickerson calls "a one-time kick start" — $35,000 in Bridgeport's case — to pay for marketing materials and staff training. Partner banks provide access to flexible mortgages with low down payments.
The key element, however, is the churches, which promote the program to their members, who in turn spread the word. About 10 African-American and Hispanic churches are involved in the Bridgeport initiative, now a year old, run by the Faith Community Development Corporation, an affiliate of Shiloh Baptist Church.
"We're getting to people who are credit-injured or have what I would call a down payment disability — that's the preacher in me," said the Rev. Carl McCluster, a consultant on faith-based initiatives and the pastor at Shiloh, where Ms. Williams is one of about 250 members.
More than 200 people have either gone through or are enrolled in the education program, according to Bridgette Russell, the interim director. Six people have closed on homes so far, but, she said, the number would be higher if home prices were lower.
"One of the greatest frustrations is you can get a person to address credit delinquencies and have sufficient savings to technically qualify for a mortgage," Ms. Russell said, "but the housing market's prices are limiting what people can do.
Housing costs are also a sticking point at the ERDA Homes program in Long Island City, Queens. "The reality is, it is hard," Pastor Taylor said. "But the unique thing about our program is that we're going to stay with you. If you work hard and play by the rules, I believe you can find a place."
ERDA Homes targets some of the neediest New Yorkers: the roughly 15,000 residents of the Queensbridge public housing development, as well as the estimated 15,000 more who live in Ravenswood, Woodside and Astoria public housing. While the end goal is homeownership, ERDA's larger aim is to build financial knowledge within a population where, surveys have shown, roughly 30 percent of residents don't even have bank accounts.
Since a clergy coalition and tenants associations began promoting the ERDA program about six months ago, about 100 residents have developed personal financial action plans, 104 have opened bank accounts and eight have been preapproved for mortgages of $130,000 to $250,000.
Rosemary Allette, who lives at Ravenswood, credits her financial counselor at ERDA with giving her the confidence to begin working toward mortgage approval.
An employee of the State Department of Education, Ms. Allette, 46, said the program motivated her to rein in her spending: she takes a bag lunch to the office, stays away from the shopping center across the street, pays her bills the day they arrive and has a set sum deducted from her paycheck for deposit into her savings. She has also paid off some old medical bills and had a $4,000 judgment removed from her credit report.
After 20 years of living in public housing, Ms. Allette said, "I'm saving up for, if not a house, at least for a co-op or a condo, something tangible, something to show for all my hard work all these years."
###
¶ Monday, May 29, 2006 0 comments
Internet may not stay free
This is awful news. I am starting a novena today to prevent this from happening ! Ya'll pray too ! Be forewarned.
The New York Times
May 28, 2006
Editorial Observer
Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End
By ADAM COHEN
The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.
This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a platform on which everyone in the world could communicate on an equal basis. But his vision is being threatened by telecommunications and cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want to impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web sites. Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.
Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of "net neutrality," rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on the Web. Corporations that stand to make billions if they can push tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying and marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality are inspiring growing support from Internet users across the political spectrum who are demanding that Congress preserve the Web in its current form.
The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European nuclear physics institute, is often confused with the Internet. But like e-mail, the Web runs over the system of interconnected computer networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the Web in a decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it and begin receiving and sending information.
That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary growth of Internet commerce and communication. Pierre Omidyar, a small-time programmer working out of his home office, was able to set up an online auction site that anyone in the world could reach — which became eBay. The blogging phenomenon is possible because individuals can create Web sites with the World Wide Web prefix, www, that can be seen by anyone with Internet access.
Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to "use my pipes free." Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.
A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.
Consider online video, which depends on the availability of higher-speed connections. Internet users can now watch channels, like BBC World, that are not available on their own cable systems, and they have access to video blogs and Web sites like YouTube.com, where people upload videos of their own creation. Under tiered pricing, Internet users might be able to get videos only from major corporate channels.
Sir Tim expects that there are great Internet innovations yet to come, many involving video. He believes people at the scene of an accident — or a political protest — will one day be able to take pictures with their cellphones that could be pieced together to create a three-dimensional image of what happened. That sort of innovation could be blocked by fees for the high-speed connections required to relay video images.
The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the slogan "hands off the Internet," that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.
But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers, too, like Google and Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees since they depend on the Internet service providers to put their sites on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied with Moveon.org on this issue, recently asked, "What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities?"
Forces favoring a no-fee Web have been gaining strength. One group, Savetheinternet.com, says it has collected more than 700,000 signatures on a petition. Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a surprisingly lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Sir Tim argues that service providers may be hurting themselves by pushing for tiered pricing. The Internet's extraordinary growth has been fueled by the limitless vistas the Web offers surfers, bloggers and downloaders. Customers who are used to the robust, democratic Web may not pay for one that is restricted to wealthy corporate content providers.
"That's not what we call Internet at all," says Sir Tim. "That's what we call cable TV."
###
¶ Monday, May 29, 2006 0 comments
The New York Times
May 28, 2006
Editorial Observer
Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End
By ADAM COHEN
The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions.
This democratic Web did not just happen. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist who invented the Web in 1989, envisioned a platform on which everyone in the world could communicate on an equal basis. But his vision is being threatened by telecommunications and cable companies, and other Internet service providers, that want to impose a new system of fees that could create a hierarchy of Web sites. Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.
Sir Tim, who keeps a low profile, has begun speaking out in favor of "net neutrality," rules requiring that all Web sites remain equal on the Web. Corporations that stand to make billions if they can push tiered pricing through have put together a slick lobbying and marketing campaign. But Sir Tim and other supporters of net neutrality are inspiring growing support from Internet users across the political spectrum who are demanding that Congress preserve the Web in its current form.
The Web, which Sir Tim invented as a scientist at CERN, the European nuclear physics institute, is often confused with the Internet. But like e-mail, the Web runs over the system of interconnected computer networks known as the Internet. Sir Tim created the Web in a decentralized way that allowed anyone with a computer to connect to it and begin receiving and sending information.
That open architecture is what has allowed for the extraordinary growth of Internet commerce and communication. Pierre Omidyar, a small-time programmer working out of his home office, was able to set up an online auction site that anyone in the world could reach — which became eBay. The blogging phenomenon is possible because individuals can create Web sites with the World Wide Web prefix, www, that can be seen by anyone with Internet access.
Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to "use my pipes free." Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.
A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.
Consider online video, which depends on the availability of higher-speed connections. Internet users can now watch channels, like BBC World, that are not available on their own cable systems, and they have access to video blogs and Web sites like YouTube.com, where people upload videos of their own creation. Under tiered pricing, Internet users might be able to get videos only from major corporate channels.
Sir Tim expects that there are great Internet innovations yet to come, many involving video. He believes people at the scene of an accident — or a political protest — will one day be able to take pictures with their cellphones that could be pieced together to create a three-dimensional image of what happened. That sort of innovation could be blocked by fees for the high-speed connections required to relay video images.
The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the slogan "hands off the Internet," that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.
But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers, too, like Google and Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees since they depend on the Internet service providers to put their sites on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied with Moveon.org on this issue, recently asked, "What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities?"
Forces favoring a no-fee Web have been gaining strength. One group, Savetheinternet.com, says it has collected more than 700,000 signatures on a petition. Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a surprisingly lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Sir Tim argues that service providers may be hurting themselves by pushing for tiered pricing. The Internet's extraordinary growth has been fueled by the limitless vistas the Web offers surfers, bloggers and downloaders. Customers who are used to the robust, democratic Web may not pay for one that is restricted to wealthy corporate content providers.
"That's not what we call Internet at all," says Sir Tim. "That's what we call cable TV."
###
¶ Monday, May 29, 2006 0 comments
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Helen Thomas
Helen Thomas warns us about the veracity of the White House - from Kennedy to Bushie Jr. Enjoy - and be forewarned ! Enjoy.
The New York Times
May 28, 2006
Questions for Helen Thomas
Corps Issues
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
Q: In your new book, "Watchdogs of Democracy?" you contend that each of the nine U.S. presidents you have covered, starting with John F. Kennedy, has slyly manipulated the media to suit his own ends. If so, what keeps you returning to the daily press briefings at the White House?
I want to stay au courant!
As a former wire-service reporter, and now as a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, do you feel that any real information comes out of the daily press briefings these days?
Sometimes. Inadvertently. I'm teasing. Once in a while you do get a story. But most of the time you learn how the administration spins and vamps to avoid telling you what is really going on. Even then, that's a story.
Do you think Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, is likely to be more forthcoming than his predecessor, Scott McClellan?
No. I don't think he is going to give us more information. I think he is a little smoother and slicker and he is trying to master how to give you a karate chop and still smile.
You yourself favor the blunt-instrument approach and were known to have asked McClellan, on an almost daily basis, why the administration persisted in bombing "innocent Iraqis."
I am sure I irritated him. But at the same time, we were still on speaking terms when he left. I wrote him a note wishing him great success in his future. We were friends, in a superficial way.
It sounds as if you basically liked him as a human being.
I like all human beings.
I would call that dodging the question.
No, I do like all human beings, but it's what they make of themselves that really hurts sometimes.
How did you feel when President Bush, or rather his aides, banished you from your longtime front-row perch at White House press conferences?
That was on March 6, 2003. I didn't want to be in the back row, and more than that, I would have liked to be called on. I would have asked the president, "Why are we going to war?" This is the most secretive administration I have ever covered.
Have you ever requested a sit-down interview with President Bush?
No. I didn't think it was possible, and I don't like to be ignored or turned down.
Are you concerned that the members of the Bush administration seem to give most of their interviews to Fox News?,/p>
No. It's always good to hear whatever anyone in power has to say, and if Fox has the access, good. If they can produce the news, that's what we want. We want the people to be informed.
In your new book, your criticism extends to Democrats as well, including L.B.J., who demonized reporters as "spies."
L.B.J. was actually talkative, and we got a lot of insight into his emotional roller coaster during Vietnam. He was secretive and paranoid in some ways, but it was interesting; you always kind of knew what was going on. He would tell you something and then say, "That's all off the record," at the same time that you knew he wanted you to write it.
Did you find President Clinton secretive?
He kept secrets, but I didn't have this sense of "Darkness at Noon."
At 85, do you ever take vacations?
Not in a long time. My vacation is to go to my apartment horizontal.
How would you define the difference between a probing question and a rude one?
I don't think there are any rude questions. I don't even like reporters to say thank you.
But you're the one who officially said, "Thank you, Mr. President," at the close of every press conference until 2003, when the practice was abruptly discontinued.
"Thank you" is fine at the end of a press conference. But I don't think you thank the president every time he answers a question. That's his job.
In which case, I won't thank you for granting this interview, lest you judge me too deferential.
Oh, no. Listen. I love it when people thank me.
### ¶ Sunday, May 28, 2006 0 comments
Helen Thomas warns us about the veracity of the White House - from Kennedy to Bushie Jr. Enjoy - and be forewarned ! Enjoy.
The New York Times
May 28, 2006
Questions for Helen Thomas
Corps Issues
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
Q: In your new book, "Watchdogs of Democracy?" you contend that each of the nine U.S. presidents you have covered, starting with John F. Kennedy, has slyly manipulated the media to suit his own ends. If so, what keeps you returning to the daily press briefings at the White House?
I want to stay au courant!
As a former wire-service reporter, and now as a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, do you feel that any real information comes out of the daily press briefings these days?
Sometimes. Inadvertently. I'm teasing. Once in a while you do get a story. But most of the time you learn how the administration spins and vamps to avoid telling you what is really going on. Even then, that's a story.
Do you think Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, is likely to be more forthcoming than his predecessor, Scott McClellan?
No. I don't think he is going to give us more information. I think he is a little smoother and slicker and he is trying to master how to give you a karate chop and still smile.
You yourself favor the blunt-instrument approach and were known to have asked McClellan, on an almost daily basis, why the administration persisted in bombing "innocent Iraqis."
I am sure I irritated him. But at the same time, we were still on speaking terms when he left. I wrote him a note wishing him great success in his future. We were friends, in a superficial way.
It sounds as if you basically liked him as a human being.
I like all human beings.
I would call that dodging the question.
No, I do like all human beings, but it's what they make of themselves that really hurts sometimes.
How did you feel when President Bush, or rather his aides, banished you from your longtime front-row perch at White House press conferences?
That was on March 6, 2003. I didn't want to be in the back row, and more than that, I would have liked to be called on. I would have asked the president, "Why are we going to war?" This is the most secretive administration I have ever covered.
Have you ever requested a sit-down interview with President Bush?
No. I didn't think it was possible, and I don't like to be ignored or turned down.
Are you concerned that the members of the Bush administration seem to give most of their interviews to Fox News?,/p>
No. It's always good to hear whatever anyone in power has to say, and if Fox has the access, good. If they can produce the news, that's what we want. We want the people to be informed.
In your new book, your criticism extends to Democrats as well, including L.B.J., who demonized reporters as "spies."
L.B.J. was actually talkative, and we got a lot of insight into his emotional roller coaster during Vietnam. He was secretive and paranoid in some ways, but it was interesting; you always kind of knew what was going on. He would tell you something and then say, "That's all off the record," at the same time that you knew he wanted you to write it.
Did you find President Clinton secretive?
He kept secrets, but I didn't have this sense of "Darkness at Noon."
At 85, do you ever take vacations?
Not in a long time. My vacation is to go to my apartment horizontal.
How would you define the difference between a probing question and a rude one?
I don't think there are any rude questions. I don't even like reporters to say thank you.
But you're the one who officially said, "Thank you, Mr. President," at the close of every press conference until 2003, when the practice was abruptly discontinued.
"Thank you" is fine at the end of a press conference. But I don't think you thank the president every time he answers a question. That's his job.
In which case, I won't thank you for granting this interview, lest you judge me too deferential.
Oh, no. Listen. I love it when people thank me.
### ¶ Sunday, May 28, 2006 0 comments
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Extended Warranties
Extended warranties, are, for the most part, a bad deal. If they weren't, the companies that sell them could not afford to stay in business. Think about that. But for this guy, the concept (and reality) worked. Perhaps it will for you as well, but be forewarned. Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 2006
Motoring
Did You Want an Extension With That Warranty?
By TARA BAUKUS MELLO
WHEN Russell D. Ollie Sr. bought an extended warranty for his 1999 Volvo, it worked out well for him — for a while. He paid far less for the protection than the warranty company paid in repairs. But he also did not gain the full benefit of the plan: the company, Warranty Gold, filed for bankruptcy in 2003, just a year after Mr. Ollie made his purchase.
"It was easy for me to get the repairs completed, and the dealer always got approvals for the charges right away," Mr. Ollie of Sammamish, Wash., said. "I was glad I got my money's worth before they went belly up."
Mr. Ollie spent $2,150 on a seven-year (or 100,000-mile) extended warranty from Warranty Gold, of Austin, Tex., for the Volvo S80 T6, just before his four-year (or 50,000-mile) factory warranty expired. The purchase paid off when Mr. Ollie had to replace the Volvo's valve springs and repair its security system. The parts alone cost $4,000, but both parts and labor were covered by the warranty. Mr. Ollie was so pleased with his savings that he praised Warranty Gold in online forums at Edmunds.com.
But in 2003, when Warranty Gold filed for bankruptcy, it left thousands of car owners like Mr. Ollie without the extended coverage they had purchased. Warranty Gold's bankruptcy occurred when the National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, its backer, was liquidated. Neither company is doing business today.
Buying an extended warranty for a vehicle can be a tough decision for consumers, whether purchasing one for a new or used car. Consumers can buy an extended warranty and never have to use it — making them question its value. Or, like Mr. Ollie, they may feel they got their money's worth.
New cars are always sold with a manufacturer's bumper-to-bumper warranty that covers everything except damage by routine wear and tear. These warranties usually range from 3 years (or 36,000 miles) to 5 years (or 60,000 miles). In general, new cars have longer warranties for their powertrains and for corrosion.
Extended warranties fall into two broad categories: those sold and backed by the vehicle's manufacturer and those offered by independent aftermarket companies. Extended warranties backed by the automaker can be purchased only from a factory-franchised dealer, but they typically must be bought before the original bumper-to-bumper warranty expires.
Any vehicle protection plan not backed by the manufacturer is known as an aftermarket warranty; these are sold for both new and used cars. Many used vehicles come with a dealer warranty that may last up to six months; often, the dealer also sells an aftermarket extended warranty. Even if the consumer declines that coverage, he or she can buy a warranty independently through some mechanics, insurance agents and Internet-based companies.
Companies offering extended warranties provide several levels of policies, ranging from major mechanical parts to bumper-to-bumper coverage that is similar, and sometimes even more comprehensive, than a vehicle's original factory warranty. Prices are based on the consumer's choice of coverage, the deductible (usually zero to $200) and the duration (like 5 years or 60,000 miles). Prices typically range from $1,000 to $3,000.
"The biggest misconception about extended warranties is that they are insurance policies," said Daniel Ryan, vice president of A. M. Best, an insurance rating company. "They are actually service contracts that are sometimes backed by an insurer."
This means that if a consumer files a claim for reimbursement, the warranty company may or may not have the money to pay; the warranty companies are not regulated by the federal government. While most states require these companies to be licensed, only a few — including California and New York — regulate them like an insurance business, monitoring their financial status and requiring them to file rates.
Anyone who has bought a new car from a dealer has probably spent a few moments listening to a salesperson promote additional services, including extra warranties, as the sale closes. Dealers hope that consumers will buy on impulse.
"Buying an extended warranty is a major purchase," said Philip Reed, senior consumer advice editor at Edmunds.com., the auto information Web site. "It's not a decision that should be rushed into."
While Edmunds.com and Consumer Reports generally advise against extended warranties, these may make sense if the buyer plans to keep the vehicle after the factory warranty expires or if the car has high mileage or a poor reliability record.
Useful resources are the online reliability ratings published by Consumer Reports, which cover the current model year as well as the previous seven, and the True Cost to Own feature at Edmunds.com, which projects repair costs. At http://consumercenter.jdpower.com, buyers can see ratings of vehicles based on owner surveys. It is a good idea to check a used vehicle's repair history with a service like CarFax.com, as well.
When Randy Corr of Alamo, Calif., bought a new Chevrolet Corvette in 2001, he knew it might have reliability issues. So he paid $1,250 for a six-year, 60,000-mile extended warranty from General Motors. "I've had two repairs since the factory warranty expired that totaled $3,200 in parts alone, so I'm definitely glad I got it," he said.
Internet-based aftermarket warranty providers usually have lower rates than a warranty sold by dealerships, which add 10 to 30 percent to the cost, said Jan Kelly of Kelly Enterprises, a training firm that works with auto dealers. "By selling an extended warranty, dealers are taking on some of the liability associated with that provider, and opening themselves up to possible issues down the road, and they mark them up as a result," she said.
With aftermarket companies, however, it is sometimes hard to obtain all the information a consumer may desire before buying. One provider, Warranty Direct of Uniondale, N.Y., said it was insured by a company rated "A" by A. M. Best, but it did not identify the company on its Web site.
Another provider, Continental Warranty of Los Angeles, said on its Web site that it was insured by three different companies, but its salespeople said they would not give consumers copies of contracts to review unless deposits had been made.
Warranty companies can have financial problems that leave consumers like Mr. Ollie without the coverage they purchased.
Mr. Reed of Edmunds.com said that buying an extended warranty was a way to purchase "peace of mind."
"Be sure to understand what components your factory warranty covers, and for how long," he said. "And then do some research on reliability to determine what you might pay in repairs. If you don't have peace of mind, then start shopping and research the companies carefully."
###
¶ Saturday, May 27, 2006 0 comments
Extended warranties, are, for the most part, a bad deal. If they weren't, the companies that sell them could not afford to stay in business. Think about that. But for this guy, the concept (and reality) worked. Perhaps it will for you as well, but be forewarned. Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 2006
Motoring
Did You Want an Extension With That Warranty?
By TARA BAUKUS MELLO
WHEN Russell D. Ollie Sr. bought an extended warranty for his 1999 Volvo, it worked out well for him — for a while. He paid far less for the protection than the warranty company paid in repairs. But he also did not gain the full benefit of the plan: the company, Warranty Gold, filed for bankruptcy in 2003, just a year after Mr. Ollie made his purchase.
"It was easy for me to get the repairs completed, and the dealer always got approvals for the charges right away," Mr. Ollie of Sammamish, Wash., said. "I was glad I got my money's worth before they went belly up."
Mr. Ollie spent $2,150 on a seven-year (or 100,000-mile) extended warranty from Warranty Gold, of Austin, Tex., for the Volvo S80 T6, just before his four-year (or 50,000-mile) factory warranty expired. The purchase paid off when Mr. Ollie had to replace the Volvo's valve springs and repair its security system. The parts alone cost $4,000, but both parts and labor were covered by the warranty. Mr. Ollie was so pleased with his savings that he praised Warranty Gold in online forums at Edmunds.com.
But in 2003, when Warranty Gold filed for bankruptcy, it left thousands of car owners like Mr. Ollie without the extended coverage they had purchased. Warranty Gold's bankruptcy occurred when the National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, its backer, was liquidated. Neither company is doing business today.
Buying an extended warranty for a vehicle can be a tough decision for consumers, whether purchasing one for a new or used car. Consumers can buy an extended warranty and never have to use it — making them question its value. Or, like Mr. Ollie, they may feel they got their money's worth.
New cars are always sold with a manufacturer's bumper-to-bumper warranty that covers everything except damage by routine wear and tear. These warranties usually range from 3 years (or 36,000 miles) to 5 years (or 60,000 miles). In general, new cars have longer warranties for their powertrains and for corrosion.
Extended warranties fall into two broad categories: those sold and backed by the vehicle's manufacturer and those offered by independent aftermarket companies. Extended warranties backed by the automaker can be purchased only from a factory-franchised dealer, but they typically must be bought before the original bumper-to-bumper warranty expires.
Any vehicle protection plan not backed by the manufacturer is known as an aftermarket warranty; these are sold for both new and used cars. Many used vehicles come with a dealer warranty that may last up to six months; often, the dealer also sells an aftermarket extended warranty. Even if the consumer declines that coverage, he or she can buy a warranty independently through some mechanics, insurance agents and Internet-based companies.
Companies offering extended warranties provide several levels of policies, ranging from major mechanical parts to bumper-to-bumper coverage that is similar, and sometimes even more comprehensive, than a vehicle's original factory warranty. Prices are based on the consumer's choice of coverage, the deductible (usually zero to $200) and the duration (like 5 years or 60,000 miles). Prices typically range from $1,000 to $3,000.
"The biggest misconception about extended warranties is that they are insurance policies," said Daniel Ryan, vice president of A. M. Best, an insurance rating company. "They are actually service contracts that are sometimes backed by an insurer."
This means that if a consumer files a claim for reimbursement, the warranty company may or may not have the money to pay; the warranty companies are not regulated by the federal government. While most states require these companies to be licensed, only a few — including California and New York — regulate them like an insurance business, monitoring their financial status and requiring them to file rates.
Anyone who has bought a new car from a dealer has probably spent a few moments listening to a salesperson promote additional services, including extra warranties, as the sale closes. Dealers hope that consumers will buy on impulse.
"Buying an extended warranty is a major purchase," said Philip Reed, senior consumer advice editor at Edmunds.com., the auto information Web site. "It's not a decision that should be rushed into."
While Edmunds.com and Consumer Reports generally advise against extended warranties, these may make sense if the buyer plans to keep the vehicle after the factory warranty expires or if the car has high mileage or a poor reliability record.
Useful resources are the online reliability ratings published by Consumer Reports, which cover the current model year as well as the previous seven, and the True Cost to Own feature at Edmunds.com, which projects repair costs. At http://consumercenter.jdpower.com, buyers can see ratings of vehicles based on owner surveys. It is a good idea to check a used vehicle's repair history with a service like CarFax.com, as well.
When Randy Corr of Alamo, Calif., bought a new Chevrolet Corvette in 2001, he knew it might have reliability issues. So he paid $1,250 for a six-year, 60,000-mile extended warranty from General Motors. "I've had two repairs since the factory warranty expired that totaled $3,200 in parts alone, so I'm definitely glad I got it," he said.
Internet-based aftermarket warranty providers usually have lower rates than a warranty sold by dealerships, which add 10 to 30 percent to the cost, said Jan Kelly of Kelly Enterprises, a training firm that works with auto dealers. "By selling an extended warranty, dealers are taking on some of the liability associated with that provider, and opening themselves up to possible issues down the road, and they mark them up as a result," she said.
With aftermarket companies, however, it is sometimes hard to obtain all the information a consumer may desire before buying. One provider, Warranty Direct of Uniondale, N.Y., said it was insured by a company rated "A" by A. M. Best, but it did not identify the company on its Web site.
Another provider, Continental Warranty of Los Angeles, said on its Web site that it was insured by three different companies, but its salespeople said they would not give consumers copies of contracts to review unless deposits had been made.
Warranty companies can have financial problems that leave consumers like Mr. Ollie without the coverage they purchased.
Mr. Reed of Edmunds.com said that buying an extended warranty was a way to purchase "peace of mind."
"Be sure to understand what components your factory warranty covers, and for how long," he said. "And then do some research on reliability to determine what you might pay in repairs. If you don't have peace of mind, then start shopping and research the companies carefully."
###
¶ Saturday, May 27, 2006 0 comments
