Amazon packages could be slower to your house, here's why
(WHTM) — Amazon and UPS have worked together for years, delivering packages faster than ever, but a slowdown is coming.
If you are an Amazon Prime member, you may recall a few years ago when almost everything was one or two-day shipping. That time is no more, and a change this month by UPS could slow down deliveries even more.
Do you like the sight of brown UPS trucks pulling up to your door? You'll see fewer in the future now that UPS has announced it is cutting its Amazon deliveries by 50% to help its bottom line. This comes as some Prime members were already complaining about slower delivery times.
'I started noticing that the packages were not coming when they stated they would come,' said Latosha Wright, one of many people who've noticed fewer two-day shipping options for some Amazon orders since COVID.
'I get an email stating the package would be delayed, like gift cards I ordered,' said Wright. 'Gift cards!'
Now the issue is that Amazon will be losing another delivery option this year, with UPS cutting back. That means Amazon will have to rely more on Amazon Flex drivers, contract drivers who often handle deliveries in unmarked personal cars.
A recent report by Vox found other Amazon Prime customers are complaining that they don't have two day shipping anymore. In a screenshot provided by Vox, a ring video doorbell had a 6-day delivery estimate, but in most cases the slowdown is with third-party sellers that now dominate the site.
Amazon explained to Insider that 'Prime two-day shipping refers to the amount of time it takes for your item to arrive once its been processed and shipped.'
Need it quickly? Look for items that say 'Get it tomorrow,' which typically means it is already in an Amazon warehouse.
'I thought two days shipping meant I would receive the package in two days,' said Wright.
If your order is delayed, the easiest way to contact Amazon is through web chat, not calling. A chat agent may even rush it out from another seller, so you get it sooner and don't waste your money.
Find more stories on DontWasteYourMoney.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be "equitable." It said the contribution requirement is "inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues." Apple also said the regulator "acted prematurely" and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was "equitable." It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers "has any connection to news production" and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. "What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money," it said. "That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production." In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. "While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services," the broadcasters said. "For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade." A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. "The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants," the office of the attorney general said. "Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters." The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve "an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden." "This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament" and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Where Homebuyers Can Still Buy Homes for Under $300K
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While a majority of U.S. homebuyers are facing sky-high prices and historically elevated mortgage rates, there are places across the country where it is still possible to find a home for under $300,000, according to recent data shared by Why It Matters The median sale price of a typical home in the United States before the COVID-19 pandemic was under $300,000, but has since climbed to well above $400,000. In April, the latest data available from Redfin, the typical U.S. home would cost buyers a median price of $437,864, up 1.3 percent from a year earlier. Historically elevated mortgage rates and skyrocketing prices—a consequence of the pandemic-driven homebuying frenzy, as well as the chronic shortage of homes that has plagued the U.S. market for years—have pushed many Americans to the sidelines, hurting first-time homebuyers the most. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the U.S. market needs 367,000 more home listings at a maximum price of $170,000, 416,000 more priced at or below $255,000 and 364,000 more priced under $340,000 to fix the existing affordability gap. However, if you know where to look, there are still pockets of the market where buying a home can be more affordable, especially in areas where inventory is rising the most. What To Know The most affordable cities in the country are concentrated in the Midwest and the South, according to the company's report. Several major cities, including Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh, enter the 145-city-strong list of places where a typical home costs $300,000 or less. Among the biggest cities with the most affordable home prices are: Detroit, MI ($109,000) Birmingham, AL ($181,500) St. Louis, MO ($199,999) Memphis, TN ($218,200) Baltimore, MD ($249,900) Lubbock, TX ($249,975) Indianapolis, IN ($268,500) Pittsburgh, PA ($274,900) Decatur, GA ($279,000) Kansas City, MO ($281,250) Oklahoma City, OK ($285,855) Louisville, KY ($289,900) Tulsa, OK ($289,900) Baton Rouge, LA ($289,945) Philadelphia, PA ($289,999) El Paso, TX ($295,000) Columbus, OH ($295,900) Clearwater, FL ($299,250) Jacksonville, FL ($299,900) Myrtle Beach, SC ($299,900) Ocala, FL ($299,999) San Antonio, TX ($300,000) Some of these cities have experienced a rapid home value appreciation during the pandemic, and even as prices remain relatively low compared to the national average of more expensive metros, they may still be unaffordable for locals. According to a monthly payment for a 30-year fixed loan at 6.8 percent on a Detroit home, with a median list price of $109,000, would cost a homebuyer roughly $762 a month "after taxes, insurance, and interest, and with a 20 percent down payment of $21,800," the company wrote. While affordability is rare on the East Coast, with the Northeast still experiencing acute housing shortages, homebuyers can find homes under $300,000 in cities such as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. What People Are Saying Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at said: "The majority of these cities are in the South or Midwest. These regions tend to offer more affordable homes as they have generally more space to grow and lower demand than a high-density city (such as New York or Boston)." Of the affordable cities on the East Coast, she said: "Some of these cities, such as Detroit or Baltimore, have gone through challenging periods. However, recent investment and growth have put them back on the map as appealing, affordable places to put down roots." What Happens Next While homeowners continue to struggle with high mortgage rates and rising housing costs, recent trends in the U.S. housing market suggest that the rapid growth in home prices that has characterized the last five years is slowing, and may even be reversing. The number of homes for sale in the U.S. is now near pre-pandemic levels, while in some parts of the country, especially in Southern states like Texas and Florida, which have built the most new homes over the past few years, they are even higher. Most importantly, much of this rising inventory is sitting idle on the market because buyers just cannot afford it or think it is worth waiting to see how things might turn out in a few months. The result is that sellers, who now outnumber buyers by an estimated 500,000, according to Redfin, are increasingly being forced to lower their asking prices to attract reluctant buyers. This downward pressure on prices could finally turn the U.S. housing market solidly in favor of buyers, although stubbornly high mortgage rates and other rising housing costs might stop them from fully enjoying this change.
