Skip to comments.
Time Warner Charges Flood Victims $300 for Each Damaged Cable Box
FoxNews ^
| Wed., July 31, 2002
Posted on 07/31/2002 10:26:19 AM PDT by Jemian
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SAN ANTONIO
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: cable; greed; texasfloods; timewarner
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-162 next last
To: illstillbe
Problem is you're a sole propietorship and TWC is a national company. People hear your story and say "good job" (and rightly so). IF TWC did that people would hear it and would start tearing up the phonelines with their sob story. Remember, the modern age of American have a natural dislike for large companies (but love small business men), you can see it on this thread. A large company needs to make a policy and stick to it, allowing exceptions gets expensive just in the processing and deciding who is and isn't immune to the rules. IMHO this will become much ado about nothing. Having owed the cable company a box before I know they're not that intense about it they'll wait until you try to get cable again then hit you up, they don't generally sick the hounds on you. Most of the folks probably have flood insurance, and I think the place got labeled a disaster area which means government money (one of the only handouts I actually agree with).
To: discostu
Perhaps FEMA will help like after fires or hurricanes. Then everyone would get their boxes replaced at no cost at all.
To: Doctor Stochastic
I wouldn't say at no cost, FEMA doesn't act as an insurance company, but they do pony up some dough and help with stuff. Of course you have to be declared a federal disaster area to get FEMA dollars. The disaster relief beauracracy tree is frightening.
To: Jemian
Got a feeling they are not going to collect anything for their boxes. I hope they lose lots of business. I'd never have them.
124
posted on
07/31/2002 2:19:21 PM PDT
by
gaffin
To: Joe Driscoll
How do they have tvs to hook cable boxes too if the flood ruined the boxes wouldn't it have ruined the tvs too? Or do they just watch the boxes for old times sake?
To: illstillbe
You did the right thing. In my post #90, I said I manage an apartment complex that was hit with severe flooding a year ago. Mud water rushed through the buildings with such force that window frames, walls and doors were busted out in less than one minute. Everything people owned was ruined and they left everything there and moved to other apartments that we have. We had every right to charge them for removal of there belongings but it would have been a very wrong move on our part if we had.
126
posted on
07/31/2002 2:54:14 PM PDT
by
muggs
To: razorback-bert
I agree. $300 is too much for a cable box, even a digital cable box. Here's a twist, does the agreement state the cost of replacing the box? If not, then a reasonable replacement charge should be administered. It sounds as though the company is screwing you both ways, you should be able to buy the box outright (as with satellite companies), or you should be able to rent-to-own the box. I would say that if the subscriber can show they have paid at least 300 bucks worth of rent, no issue. If not, pay the difference.
My wife's (girlfriend at the time) apartment was robbed and they stole her rented caller ID box. The phone company billed her over $50 for it. She said "No way!", and went out and bought the exact same box (brand name and all) at the store for $15 and sent it to them. They had a new box and she saved over $35 on the issue.
Why do they still have boxes (except for digital)? I've lived in several areas that only require you to hook into the coax at the wall, no box. Everything is handled at the source. Even for premium channels.
I agree, though, if the lease says you're responsible, suck it up.
To: Guillermo
You tell me why TW should eat the cost. Tell me how they should be reimbursed.
I have not read ALL the posts, so excuse me if someone said this. Maybe Time Warner should have insurance on THEIR cable boxes. They probably do and will get reimbursed for whatever they cannot collect from unsuspecting customers first....or both knowing them.
128
posted on
07/31/2002 3:36:07 PM PDT
by
AdA$tra
To: cake_crumb
$300 dollars is a LITTLE over the going price.
I would be shocked if TW paid more than 20-30 dollars each for them.
129
posted on
07/31/2002 3:41:33 PM PDT
by
AdA$tra
To: Jemian
I understand. I was not blaming you for the title.
To: sphinx
Agreed. The subscriber has to be responsible. That is why one carries homeowner's or renter's insurance. The one thing that does seem strange is the $300 fee. That sure sounds excessive for that black box. I wonder just what Time-Warner pays for them.
131
posted on
07/31/2002 4:05:17 PM PDT
by
CdMGuy
To: Jemian
The least Time Warner could do here is only charge these flood victims the "replacement cost", or their cost for the boxes.
I'm certain it's far less than $300.
132
posted on
07/31/2002 4:08:22 PM PDT
by
copycat
To: AdA$tra
So if I rent you my lawnmower, and while it's under your possession and care, you trash it, it's MY responsibility because I didn't insure it.
Would you insure something that would be out of the possession of the owner 100% of the time?? NO, and neither do insurance co's.
To: Jemian
"We are sympathetic to them," she told the San Antonio Express-News. "But we are going to @#$! them anyway."
They sound like democRATs don't they? "I feel your pain. Now bend over."
To: 2banana
Isn't this why you have insurance?
This is my thought too.
Somebody has to pay for these boxes. Is it any more unfair or unrealistic to expect TW to pay?
Just because they are some big greedy corporate empire.
I think not!
135
posted on
07/31/2002 5:57:21 PM PDT
by
PFKEY
To: Don Joe
As I previously stated, it depends on the terms of the agreement. If you, as lessee, are charged as responsible for all but normal wear and tear, then you owe the lessor. If not otherwise stated, it's the lessors' job to insure their property. . . .
136
posted on
07/31/2002 6:03:38 PM PDT
by
Salgak
To: Joe Driscoll
For those without insurance a reduced cost of say $75 (actual cost) will be added to future bills and can be paid over time.
Cable TV is a luxury. If people can not afford this luxury and affording means being able to honor your contract and pay for the box if damaged then you really can't afford this luxury.
Why not take the money you would have spent on cable TV and buy some renters insurence?
137
posted on
07/31/2002 6:23:30 PM PDT
by
PFKEY
To: DJ88
It's really raised my spirits to see such an outpouring of care and concern on your part towards your own fellow Americans.
I've got a friend who got flooded out and has to pay for their cable box.
I'd be happy to FreepMail you their address and you can show us how caring and concerned you really are.
Care to put your money with your mouth is?
138
posted on
07/31/2002 6:37:03 PM PDT
by
PFKEY
To: Guillermo
My firm has insurance on every scrap of hardware we own regardless of whether or not it is in a client office or my computer room. We would be stupid not to....they are a large part of our assets. Hell, we pay taxes on it too. What I really don't understand is why this thread even has legs at all. What can I say....I've posted three or four now myself!
139
posted on
07/31/2002 6:37:42 PM PDT
by
AdA$tra
To: AdA$tra
Well, most on this thread would say you shouldn't have to bear the deductable, if a flood destroyed your business, since the flood wasn't your fault.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-162 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson