Time Warner Charges Flood Victims $300 for Each Damaged Cable Box

FoxNews ^ | Wed., July 31, 2002

[Jemian]

SAN ANTONIO

[Area51]

I would think this is a homeowners/renters insurance issue. If my car gets swept away by a flood, I don't go to GM and ask for a free replacement.

Shakedown, it's what it is all about now days. Getting something for nothing, or running from ones obligations. Disgusting...

[Guillermo]

Yes, the stupidity on this thread is appalling.

How can one even respond to such idiotic emotionalism?

[Salgak]

Except that the company has already written off the cost of doing business with you. If the terms of service did not specifically require the customer to insure the box, then the owner of the box is required to take care of insurance. Just like when you lease an apartment, you insure YOUR contents, but not the building. The landlord insures the building. This is the same principle. . .

[Freakazoid]

The title of this article stinks! The "customers" are responsible for the boxes. Hey, floods happen. You live in a flood plain, you except the responsibility. Homeowners insurance will probably cover this. Time Warner didn't seed the rain clouds. They deserve compensation.

[Militiaman7]

add bankers to your list

[Guillermo]

That's a stupid reason.

They AGREED when they got the boxes to PAY for them if they were destroyed. TW never agreed to pay for them under reasons of force majeure. They shouldn't have to suffer for it.

I bet you try to welch out of obligations you make all the time, citing "extenuating circumstances".

[6ppc]

I Am surrounded by stupid People!

Well...not all of us. This is clearly an item that should be covered by homeowner's or flood insurance.

[Jemian]

leased from the cable company.

I don't get it. You lease or rent equipment it is YOUR responsibility. READ WHAT YOU SIGN. If they didn't want the burden they shouldn't have signed the Lease.

Leasing isn't the same as owning. And no, if a flood, tornado, forest fire destroys leased property it is the owners misfortune, not the leasees.

Let's try to keep this impersonal. We do disagree on this, however I am not being billed myself for it. I have signed nothing and am not involved in this dispute in anyway.

[Wurlitzer]

"Just one more reason to remain a loyal DirecTV subscriber. Although, they do have some crappy policies. "

Do they require a SS number in your area? In Western New York, no SS number no dish. I thought requiring SS numbers was not allowed.

[Jemian]

I copied the title from Foxnews.

[Guillermo]

Why should TW worry about your insurance?

You AGREE to pay for the box they lease to you if it is destroyed.

A few years ago I had a roomate, who when he moved out, took the cable box in his room with him. *I* had to pay, as *I* was repsonsible. I did not try to screw the cable company, as his thievery was not my fault. I accepted responsibilty like a man.

People WHINING about having to pay for something they agreed to pay for, should be tied to the whipping post.

[FreeTally]

Well...not all of us. This is clearly an item that should be covered by homeowner's or flood insurance.

And nowhere in the article does it say the converters will not be covered by insurance policies. They may very well be. This could all be hysterics. The people complaining may simply not have insurance.

[Guillermo]

Leasing isn't the same as owning. And no, if a flood, tornado, forest fire destroys leased property it is the owners misfortune, not the leasees.

Not when you AGREE to accept responsibility for the property. When one rents an apartment, one does not agree to accept responsibility for the structure.

What's so difficult about understanding the concept of accepting responsibility, then performing when necessary?

[razorback-bert]

I agree with you about who pays, but $300 is too much, I can buy a new sat receiver for $80.

[Redbob]

What do you find "disgusting"?
The fact that there's not some big government hand-out to pay for the cable boxes?
The fact that people are being held responsible?
The fact a major corporation is acting to protect its' stockholders from further loss?

[frnewsjunkie]

These same liberals want to take money from middle income paychecks, to 'share' with those less fortunate. These same liberals will tell us how compassionate they are. These same liberals (in cases like this), will charge them instead of 'helping' them. This is how you can tell if it's a skunk... by its odor.

[Agog]

Makes sense that if the contract calls for the person renting the box to pay if it is destroyed, then they should pay. The real question, however, is what is cost of a replacement box. $300 per box sounds ridiculously high to me. Was the replacmement cost specified in the contract?

[Guillermo]

If I recall correctly, when I subscribed for cable, and received a box, I was fully aware of the cost of a lost/broken cable box. They made sure that you knew.

I'm sure these people were made aware as well.

They're a bunch of welchers.

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh! this is a winner of a policy...