Kudos AT&T in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19329627 en Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:31:23 EDT Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:31:23 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19332713 fiberguy : You quoted the who post just to troll? wow.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19332713 Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:51:27 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19331087 major marco :
said by fiberguy See Profile :



You are acting like insurance is once size fits all. If I lived in a flood area, I'm going to seek flood insurance. If I live in an area that has tornadoes, which I do, I seek to find out if I have coverage. In my case, if the tornado doesn't get me, water damage will. My insurance agent told me about how water damage affects me. Heavy rains and flash floods constitute a "flood" and I needed to seek that coverage. If I live near wooded areas (such as CA that burns once a year) I would see the proper coverage.

If you have home owners or renters insurance, then the contents of the home are going to be covered with exception to necessary riders such as high value items, collections, etc. (again, this is where it takes the basic of all skills to "ASK QUESTIONS")

I don't believe ANYTHING I'm told. What I DO believe in is what I get in writing. Oh my god.. there's that "in writing" terms. I should simply base my entire relationship with a company off of their advertisement and two or three words, right? I mean, everyone else in the world does! oi.

No, when I get insurance or any contract, *I* take the time to read it. Ask me what I'm covered for and I will tell you in advance. I buy coverage and protect myself.

Again, irregardless, how does not having the proper coverage excuse anyone? How does finding out after the fact that you didn't have coverage it's all ok to avoid obligation? I suppose after that car accident, I find out that I don't have proper coverage to protect the other guy that "it's ok.. they will forgive my responsibility - after all, it is a catastrophe or accident" right?

Where does self responsibility come in to play? Right now it's the time to be in a mood of feeling sorry - but as time goes on, and we get further away from the fires, reality comes back to the ground.

The bottom line is when they got the equipment, they were told they were responsible for that equipment from loss damage. DAMAGE. It didn't say "unless you don't have coverage"...

I'm not shocked by this story at all. Having spent time in cable, I've seen many customers get hit will bills for typical house fires, burglary, and other losses still get that bill for a lost converted. In all cases, the bills stay. In this case, it should too. What I DON'T think providers should do is charge a termination fee or any penalty for the contracts, and should be lenient on paying of their bills so these people can get their lives together. HOWEVER, I think they should have to remain responsible for the equipment UNLESS the provider choses to release them of the obligation.

I do not believe that it will make at&t or dish ANY LESS of a company for holding the customer to it either. These unfortunate people lost a lot. In many cases, they lost it all. But, don't think for one moment that those with insurance will certainly get a nice check from their insurance company to rebuild.. to buy new beds, clothes, HOUSE, TV, and YES, satellite boxes. Why shouldn't these providers collect on the damage rightfully owed?

If they chose to forgive the box fees, which they shouldn't, then that's their choice. I certainly don't think any contract penalties should matter. It's certainly up to the provider though - in this case, I won't judge them for putting their hands out, in the long run. Maybe they could be nice and forgive those with out insurance, but CERTAINLY not those WITH it.

Why feel sorry in that case? It's the insurance company paying dish.. so what?

And for the record - yes, I've filed a claim before in my life. I'm HEAVILY covered and I CERTAINLY know that it's not in the interest of the insurance company to pay claims - they aren't in the business of that. However, liability ALWAYS in ALL CASES of insurance in this company (be it home, auto, life, or health) remains first and foremost the responsibility of the individual first.
Who are you trying to convince here...yourself or SilverSurfer?
--
The Toll

Let's Go Flyers!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19331087 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:48:55 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19330853 fiberguy : You're assuming that I've never filed a claim. Irregardless, that's not the case. (and thanks for the insult)

You are acting like insurance is once size fits all. If I lived in a flood area, I'm going to seek flood insurance. If I live in an area that has tornadoes, which I do, I seek to find out if I have coverage. In my case, if the tornado doesn't get me, water damage will. My insurance agent told me about how water damage affects me. Heavy rains and flash floods constitute a "flood" and I needed to seek that coverage. If I live near wooded areas (such as CA that burns once a year) I would see the proper coverage.

If you have home owners or renters insurance, then the contents of the home are going to be covered with exception to necessary riders such as high value items, collections, etc. (again, this is where it takes the basic of all skills to "ASK QUESTIONS")

I don't believe ANYTHING I'm told. What I DO believe in is what I get in writing. Oh my god.. there's that "in writing" terms. I should simply base my entire relationship with a company off of their advertisement and two or three words, right? I mean, everyone else in the world does! oi.

No, when I get insurance or any contract, *I* take the time to read it. Ask me what I'm covered for and I will tell you in advance. I buy coverage and protect myself.

Again, irregardless, how does not having the proper coverage excuse anyone? How does finding out after the fact that you didn't have coverage it's all ok to avoid obligation? I suppose after that car accident, I find out that I don't have proper coverage to protect the other guy that "it's ok.. they will forgive my responsibility - after all, it is a catastrophe or accident" right?

Where does self responsibility come in to play? Right now it's the time to be in a mood of feeling sorry - but as time goes on, and we get further away from the fires, reality comes back to the ground.

The bottom line is when they got the equipment, they were told they were responsible for that equipment from loss damage. DAMAGE. It didn't say "unless you don't have coverage"...

I'm not shocked by this story at all. Having spent time in cable, I've seen many customers get hit will bills for typical house fires, burglary, and other losses still get that bill for a lost converted. In all cases, the bills stay. In this case, it should too. What I DON'T think providers should do is charge a termination fee or any penalty for the contracts, and should be lenient on paying of their bills so these people can get their lives together. HOWEVER, I think they should have to remain responsible for the equipment UNLESS the provider choses to release them of the obligation.

I do not believe that it will make at&t or dish ANY LESS of a company for holding the customer to it either. These unfortunate people lost a lot. In many cases, they lost it all. But, don't think for one moment that those with insurance will certainly get a nice check from their insurance company to rebuild.. to buy new beds, clothes, HOUSE, TV, and YES, satellite boxes. Why shouldn't these providers collect on the damage rightfully owed?

If they chose to forgive the box fees, which they shouldn't, then that's their choice. I certainly don't think any contract penalties should matter. It's certainly up to the provider though - in this case, I won't judge them for putting their hands out, in the long run. Maybe they could be nice and forgive those with out insurance, but CERTAINLY not those WITH it.

Why feel sorry in that case? It's the insurance company paying dish.. so what?

And for the record - yes, I've filed a claim before in my life. I'm HEAVILY covered and I CERTAINLY know that it's not in the interest of the insurance company to pay claims - they aren't in the business of that. However, liability ALWAYS in ALL CASES of insurance in this company (be it home, auto, life, or health) remains first and foremost the responsibility of the individual first.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19330853 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:17:00 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19330417 SilverSurfer :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

I side with at&t on this one. Home owners and renters need to protect themselves with insurance. The fact that these people did lose their homes is awful, but this is why insurance is available. The leased equipment, like all other items in their home, is covered by insurance. The home owner/renter should include the box and pay the loss to at&t/dish or who ever. (and there is the cruel side to me that everyone expects)
Yunno, that is a beautiful theory. Theoretically, you buy homeowner's insurance and bam! No worries when catastrophe X occurs right? You kept the policy up to date and you paid month after month religiously for years so you should be covered, but I gotta tell you that if you believe that myth, then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Insurance does not quite work that flawlessly or laterally, and, obviously, you would know that if you've ever submitted a claim, but frankly, you stike me as someone who believes in the pie-in-the-sky promises from XYZ corporation simply because the anvil has never dropped on your head and roused you from your dreams.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19330417 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:57:37 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19330293 supernac : Nope I didn't call. If my house burns down I will have more important things to worry about than my dish receiver.

You think someone at ATT said "o no, karl called and is upset".

lol

There was a TV REPORT on it, I would think that far out ways anything karl did.

Again if this was my house, this would be the last thing on my mind.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19330293 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:37:30 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329981 KA3SGM :
said by supernac See Profile :

Your kidding right?
Am I kidding?? Who are YOU kidding???
I didn't see you calling AT&T to try to help correct the problem.

Maybe if your house burns down some day, someone might actually lift a finger to help you out of a bad situation.

Although That 'someone' won't be me..
--
"Lithium is no longer available on credit"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329981 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:49:29 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329802 fiberguy : Lets be honest and fair here. As much as I despise ANYTHING at&t after years of abuse, I certainly don't think Karl was the cure here.

With disaster comes confusion - with confusion comes issues like this. The CSR on the phone is just a low paid employee who isn't empowered to make the magic wand decisions.

This couple was one of the first people, most likely, to call this in. I'm sure many of their customers weren't worried about canceling their TV service as a first thought. Many, I'm sure, are more worried about finding a place to live, and settle their immediate needs - not cancel their TV.

With that, eventually, the orders from the uppers would have been to not penalize those in a natural disaster...

Again, I don't care at all for at&t, but even those that are not in the winners circle do the right thing in the end. It is VERY possible that the official position hadn't made it down the pipe yet.

I HARDLY think Karl is a hero or is the one to take the credit here - sorry.

However, in all honesty, I side with at&t on this one. Home owners and renters need to protect themselves with insurance. The fact that these people did lose their homes is awful, but this is why insurance is available. The leased equipment, like all other items in their home, is covered by insurance. The home owner/renter should include the box and pay the loss to at&t/dish or who ever. (and there is the cruel side to me that everyone expects)
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329802 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:21:33 EDT Re: Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329759 supernac : Your kidding right?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329759 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:14:10 EDT Kudos Karl !!! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329691 KA3SGM :
said by Matt See Profile :

Good to see they are doing the right thing here. I just hope it would have happened if the story hadn't made BBR and BBR hadn't contacted them about it.
If Karl had not brought this story to light in the first place, there would have been a very different outcome.

Hat's off and thanks again Karl !!!
--
"Lithium is no longer available on credit"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329691 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:03:23 EDT Kudos AT&T http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329627 Matt : Good to see they are doing the right thing here. I just hope it would have happened if the story hadn't made BBR and BBR hadn't contacted them about it.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19329627 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:54:23 EDT