how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to baineschile
Re: Never will work I can't agree with these suits at all.. as a matter of fact, the government, first handed, is what has had a big part of the so-called "forced rental" of converters.
If you will recall back to the mid 90's when cable was regulated, de-regulated, regulated again, and so on and on, equipment was never charged to the customer; it was simply part of the price of cable.
The LAW came in and REQUIRED that the cable operators break out a line item to show the cost of equipment to the customer. Meantime, the additional outlets were no longer able to be charged for, the law required they line item equipment where necessary. Along with the change came mirror fees, which were allowed, and equipment rentals, and the free installation of outlets went away as well.
So now that equipment is charged and required to be line itemized, customers are angry and want to sue the providers for 'forced rental' of equipment?
This is a classic reason why anytime someone here says "I want the government to do X for us to "make things better" for the consumer" is why I say what I do.. The government, which includes the judicial branch, rarely does any favors to the consumer.
Now, to the reality.. and this is what people JUST DON'T GET!! This is NOT what someone really wants to push.. that $5 per box is not going to go away no matter how one tries to sue it out of existence. Comcast, for the most part, simply charges for the equipment rental on the additional outlet.. SOME systems do charge the "mirror" fee on top of box rentals.. and then some companies, like media com have been charging both for quite some time (equipment + mirror feet or as they call it the "gateway fee".)
What's going to happen is Comcast will stop charging for equipment to those that want to buy theirs, obviously, but you're GOING to see that very same fee BACK in the form of a "digital programming" fee, or "mirror fee" etc..
So really, what people are saying, in my summary, is:
1) The lawyers: We'll take the case, we need the money! We're in the business of telling another private industry how to run their business and will gladly take their money, but we really don't care about the consumer.
2) The customer: We want to buy the same crappy box that constantly has problems (according to many) and we want to buy it for a few hundred dollars. When the box breaks, we want to deal with warranty ourselves (unless we can get our attorneys to MAKE comcast extend a year warranty too even though most places will make you deal with the manufacture after 30 days) AND when that box breaks down, we don't want credit for the down time and PLEASE charge us to come out and diagnose our own equipment and charge us for it.. or, I'll gladly pay the $3.95 monthly wire charge, which will likely go up becuase of this.
3) Even with the box that we now own, PLEASE charge us the same charge for the programming of the box every month. I just want to own the box, not rent it and be responsible for that "piece of crap box" that you used to rent to us.. I just feel better about owning it now. Thank you!!
Seriously.. when July came around and the operators were forced to stop even deploying hardware already purchased that didn't have cable cards in it, do we all remember that...? ... it was suppose to open up the flood gates to all those profit hungry electronics companies just itching to make consumer converters... so, where are all those boxes on the wal-mart shelves and so on?? (Crickets chirping) Wow.. the government called that wrong too.. and just like the digital transition about to happen, that ruling wasn't new either.. everyone knew it was coming. So, you'd think with YEARS of knowledge, electronics manufactures had all that time to stock up on consumer boxes.. and didn't.
NOW consumers want the cable companies to sell THEIR boxes, or the ones they get, to the end user?
While personally, I have no issue with that.. and believe that there's nothing wrong with it (other than the same head ache over who owns the box, like the cable modem issues today) I just don't think that 1) there is going to be NO demand of people wanting to buy boxes and the law suite is all about money to the lawyers and those involved, and 2) this is NOT going to drop the price of the cable bill ONE cent, rather it will raise it in many cases, and people will ultimately will be even angrier realizing they're spending even more money on equipment, with the same head aches, and its costing them more per month, in the long run, to simply see the monthly fee go away.
The one thing history has shown is is that you can't legislate or win a verdict in court that will lower your bill. Anytime this kind of thing happens, it just causes a provider to find other ways to make life "pleasant" for the consumer. Even the very cable act in the 90's that was supposed to "lower bills" caused more than 80% of consumers to pay more per month when it took effect.
The law suit makes good press and riles people up, however, I don't think they know really how hard they are poking at the bee's hive. | |
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Never will work Exactly the point. Comcast would probably welcome the idea of customers buying the boxes from them. When they break, the consumer has to handle fixing it, pay for fixing it, and probably deal with the vendors. I am sure that MSO's already pay a great deal in just maintaining this equipment. It's sort of like renting a house or an apartment? When you rent, its maintenance free, but when you buy... Its on your tab. | |
| reply to fiberguy
I suppose none of the detractors remember phone leases, and the $37.50 it cost for the installer repairman required to connect it. The cost of telephones was paid many times over by customers.
When modular became the norm, a telephone could be purchased for what four months rental cost those who still leased from their telco. My mother, who had continued leasing after modular was available, paid more than $500.00 to lease while I had paid $60 to buy two cheap phones. Let the compitition begin and see how the cost will fall. | |
|
