Contrary to the title, this video is from the 2005/2006 race, but it's amazing, that's extreme sailing ...  and we thought we were sailing...lol. I can't imagine anything more exhilarating that sending a 70ft racing machine surfing on the waves, well maybe a 90ft multihull maybe

 

For hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs during the recession, there's a new twist to their financial pain: Even as they're collecting unemployment benefits, they're paying bank fees just to get access to their money.

Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc. (C) (C), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) (BAC), JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp (USB) (USB), an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 - even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.

"It's a racket. It's a scam," said Rachel Davis, a 38-year-old dental technician from St. Louis who was laid off in October. Davis was given a MasterCard issued through Central Bank of Jefferson City and recently paid $6 to make two $40 withdrawals.

The banks say their programs offer convenience. They also provide at least one way to tap the money at no charge, such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. But the banks benefit from human nature, as people end up treating the cards like all the other plastic in their wallets.

The fees are raising questions from lawmakers who just recently voted to infuse banks with taxpayer money to keep them afloat.

Steven Adamske, spokesman for the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, said he wasn't aware of the debit card programs before he was contacted by the AP, but was concerned about card holder fees.

"Our hope ... would be that banks who are getting federal assistance would forgo these kinds of fees as we're trying to help everyone in society deal with this recession," Adamske said.

Some banks, depending on the agreement negotiated with each state, also make money on the interest they earn after the state deposits the money and before it's spent. The banks and credit card companies also get roughly 1 percent to 3 percent off the top of each transaction made with the cards.

Neither banks nor credit card companies will say how much money they are making off the programs, or what proportion of the revenue comes from user versus merchant fees or interest. It's difficult to estimate the profits because they depend on how often recipients use their cards and where they use them.

But the potential is clear.

In Missouri, for instance, 94,883 people claimed unemployment benefits through debit cards from Central Bank. Analysts say a recipient uses a card an average of six to 10 times a month. If each cardholder makes three withdrawals at an out-of-network ATM, at a fee of $1.75, the bank would collect nearly $500,000. If half of the cardholders also dial customer service three times in any given week (the first time is free; after that, it's 25 cents a call), the bank's revenue would jump to more than $521,000. That would yield $6.3 million a year.

Rachel Storch, a Democratic state representative, received a wave of complaints about the fees from autoworkers laid off from a suburban St. Louis Chrysler plant. She recently urged Gov. Jay Nixon to review the state's contract with Central Bank with an eye toward reducing the fees.

"I think the contract is unfair and potentially illegal to unemployment recipients," she said.

Central Bank did not return two messages seeking comment.

Glenn Campbell, a spokesman for Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., said the congressman would support a review of the debit card programs nationwide.

Another 10 states - including the unemployment hot spots of California, Florida and South Carolina - are considering such programs or have signed contracts. The remainder still use traditional checks or direct deposit.

With the national unemployment rate now at 7.6 percent, the market for bank-issued unemployment cards is booming. In 2003, states paid only $4 million of unemployment insurance through debit cards. By 2007, it had ballooned to $2.8 billion, and by 2010 it will likely rise to $10.5 billion, according to a study conducted by Mercator Advisory Group, a financial industry consulting firm.

The economic stimulus plan signed by President Barack Obama this week will increase federal unemployment benefits by $40 billion this year. Subsequently, there will be more money from which banks can collect fees. The U.S. Department of Labor allows the fees as long as states create a way for recipients to get their money for free, spokeswoman Suzy Bohnert said.

"Beyond that, the individual decides how to manage his drawdowns using the debit card," she said in an e-mail.

A typical contract looks like the agreement between Citigroup and the state of Kansas, which took effect in November. The state expects to save $300,000 a year by wiring payments to Citigroup instead of printing and mailing checks.

Citigroup's bill to the state: zero. The bank collects its revenue from fees paid by merchants and the unemployed.

"If you use your card the right way, you're not going to pay fees at all," said Paul Simpson, Citigroup's global head of public sector, health care and wholesale cards.

But that's not always practical.

Arthur Santa-Maria, a laid-off engineer who lives just outside Albuquerque, N.M., said he didn't pay any fees the first time he was laid off, for several months in 2007. His unemployment benefits were paid by paper checks. He found a new job last year but was laid off again last fall.

This time, he was issued a Bank of America debit card - a "prepaid" card in industry lingo - but he was surprised to learn he had to pay fees to get his money. He asked the bank to waive them. It said no. That's when Santa-Maria called back to ask how to check his account online. He logged on and saw that the call cost him a half dollar. To avoid more fees, Santa-Maria found a Bank of America ATM at a strip mall and withdrew $80 at no charge. When he got back to his car, he decided to take out the rest of his money - $250 - and deposit it in his bank account.

Afterward, Santa-Maria logged on to his account and saw a charge of $1.50 for two withdrawals in one day.

"They're trying to use my money to make money," Stanta-Maria said. "I just see banks trying to make that 50 cents or a buck and a half when I should be given the service for free."

New Mexico authorities bargained with Bank of America to get lower fees for unemployment recipients, said Carrie Moritomo, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Workforce Solutions. The state saves up to $1.5 million annually by switching from checks to debit cards.

Bank of America spokeswoman Britney Sheehan pointed out that the fees charged in New Mexico are similar to those charged in the 29 other states with unemployment debit cards. The bank believes "the fee schedule is reasonable and consistent with similar programs," she said.

Banks could issue unemployment debit cards with no fees for cardholders, but that would likely mean that states would have to pay more of the administrative costs, said Mark Harrington, director of marketing for Citigroup's prepaid card services. If a state demanded no cardholder fees and could pay the difference, Citigroup might enter such a contract.

"We would be open to that," Harrington said. "We're not looking to structure any programs where we would lose money, but we're definitely flexible."

Simpson noted that the cards can save money for jobless workers who have no bank accounts. In the past, these people had to use corner check-cashing shops that charged fees as high as 2 percent, or $6 for a $300 check. Now, they can swipe their cards at McDonald's, Wal-Mart or elsewhere for free.

Kenna Gortler, a laid-off paper mill worker in Oregon, said her union is advising members to avoid the debit cards and sign up to get their benefits through direct deposit. More than 300 of her fellow workers have lost their jobs at the mill in the last three months, and horror stories about ATM fees and overdraft charges are starting to filter back to others who are just now signing up for their benefits.

"It's discouraging," Gortler said. "People have limited funds and they don't need to be giving money to the banks. They need to be keeping that money to feed their families and pay bills."

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20090220/D96F3TN81.html

Americans are more economically productive with broadband than any other country, according to new research. But that doesn’t mean the US in number one in broadband.

Likely major ISPs and backbone providers will gleefully point to Saul Hansell’s New York Times blog—and his headline: Surprise: America is No. 1 in Broadband—in rebuttal to criticism of how they’ve built out their networks.

Americans are more economically productive with broadband than any other country, according to new research. But that doesn’t mean the US in number one in broadband.

Likely major ISPs and backbone providers will gleefully point to Saul Hansell’s New York Times blog—and his headline: Surprise: America is No. 1 in Broadband—in rebuttal to criticism of how they’ve built out their networks.

The Connectivity Scorecard, developed by Leonard Waverman, dean of Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary, offers a holistic comparison of how governments, businesses, and consumers use the Internet for economic productivity. No surprise the US rocked that category—we’re always working, man.

And we’re working on slower connections than over a dozen other countries. Think how productive we’d be if we had speeds comparable to Japan or Korea. That’s been the point of the criticism against the broadband that’s available. It’s not, as Hansell puts it, about “a new Sputnik” challenge.

The broadband problem has been that a handful of companies hamper competition by operating, if areas are lucky, duopolies, and even limit speed roll-outs and network advancements because of artificial, gradual speed build-up profit schemes.

Worse, the US government gave them $200 billion 1996 to keep America ahead in the broadband game, and they spent that money on long distance instead. The consequence of that is the US shares a place on the broadband list with Mexico and Turkey.

If the US is number one in using broadband for economic growth, then that’s thanks to the good old American workaholic spirit, not to cable and phone companies handicapping their systems.

 

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/02/23/americas-not-really-tops-in-broadband 

As unemployment reaches levels not seen in decades, job and business-opportunity scams are flourishing.

Consumer-protection and law-enforcement groups and better-business bureaus are reporting a growing number of phony job-recruitment and work-at-home schemes targeting desperate Americans looking for a way to pay the bills.

"In these times of despair, people who have been laid off, including executives, make desperate decisions, and the predators are out there," says Michael Galvin, vice president of communications at the Better Business Bureau of Southeast Florida and the Caribbean, in West Palm Beach, Fla.

More Complaints

The Federal Trade Commission, the consumer-protection agency, received nearly 6,000 complaints against employment agencies and job-counseling services in 2007. The numbers of complaints are almost certain to rise along with the unemployment figures.

Some business-opportunity rip-offs require an upfront fee of $40 to $200 or more to receive information. Often, instead of receiving specific instructions, customers receive vague advice on how to place Internet ads to sell products.

Some scams are variants of mail-based frauds originating overseas that have circulated for years, and part victims not only from their cash, but also from sensitive personal information that could be used for identity theft.

Others are "phishing" scams that use email or fake Web sites from phony employers to gather confidential data from victims for identity theft or money laundering.

Among complaints of identity theft, employment-related ID fraud increased to 14% in 2007 from 12% of complaints in 2005, according to the FTC.

Limit Personal Data

Job seekers should protect themselves by withholding some personal information on résumés posted on Internet job boards. They should never supply Social Security numbers or bank-account numbers upfront or over the phone. Also, be wary of job and business opportunities that promise hefty rewards with little effort, consumer-protection officials say.

To be sure, employment and business scams are nothing new. But officials say the number of scams often rises and falls with the economic tides, and right now the tide is bringing in the sharks.

In November, police in Tennessee arrested and charged a female suspect in connection with an employment scam that they believe spanned several states, including Texas, Missouri and New York.

The woman, who had posed as a man, allegedly advertised jobs for security officers and house cleaners. Job hopefuls filled out applications that included their Social Security numbers and dates of birth and paid $69, supposedly for background checks and drug screenings.

But no job referrals came, and the so-called recruiter allegedly absconded with the job seekers' applications and money. Arresting officers in Memphis said they confiscated 60 work applications and tax documents containing personal information from the suspect.

Meanwhile, phony executive-search firms are demanding thousands of dollars in upfront fees from corporate job candidates, who wind up with nothing but headaches.

Author and executive coach Linda Dominguez says fraudsters apparently are targeting increasingly desperate executives whose résumés have languished on job boards for months.

Sometimes the victims don't report the crimes to the police or other authorities because they're worried about appearing foolish to prospective employers.

In general, "executive recruiters are paid by the companies, so if they are asking for your money, a red flag should go up," Ms. Dominguez says.

'Work at Home' Scams

Don't pay fees for referrals to government jobs, including jobs with the U.S. Postal Service, either; there are no "secret" channels to government employment.

Federal jobs are listed at www.usa.gov; state and local positions also are posted on government Web sites, and information on them is sometimes posted in state unemployment offices.

Pitches for bogus work-at-home opportunities involving medical billing, rebate processing, "mystery shopper" positions that promise to pay you for buying products anonymously for companies, and money-order processing jobs also are on the rise, say Better Business Bureau and consumer-protection officials.

One classic rip-off involves a "job" cashing checks or reshipping electronics supplied by parcel post. The recipient is supposed to keep a portion of the funds and return the rest to the sender.

But the checks are often counterfeit, and the goods are stolen. A participant runs the risk of being prosecuted as well as cheated.

Roberto delos Santos of Tucson, Ariz., posted his résumé on an Internet job board in late December. The 59-year-old nearly became a victim after answering an emailed job offer for an "administrative assistant."

Without so much as an interview, Mr. delos Santos then received an email informing him he was "hired" and asking him to return a signed job agreement. That's when he learned the "job" consisted of receiving money orders, checks and other instruments and transferring funds through Western Union and MoneyGram.

"I became suspicious," he says, after he noted the irregular spelling of the company's name and other details.

Mr. delos Santos, a former home-care aide, decided not to return the agreement, and instead notified his local Better Business Bureau, which warned him that the pitch was a money-laundering scam.

Meanwhile, own-your-own-business schemes also are spreading, including pyramid schemes disguised as network-marketing (otherwise known as multilevel-marketing) programs. The pitches usually promise outsize riches for little effort.

But if you earn commissions primarily by recruiting others and not by selling goods or services, the enterprise likely is illegal, say officials at the FTC. The agency reported nearly 3,100 complaints about pyramid schemes, chain letters and multilevel marketing groups in 2007.

"If how you get money is getting other people to sign up, that is a sign there is something wrong," says LaShawn M. Johnson, a staff attorney at the FTC.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB123405267844760357.html?mod=sunday_journal_primary_hs