Search similar:
|
|
uniqs
3517 |
|
 |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI |
UmIsnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges?
When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive.
If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. | |  Chris 313Because It's Geekier
Premium Member
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA ·AT&T FTTP
 ·Comcast XFINITY
|
said by baineschile:Isnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges? When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive. If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. Sure, I get what your saying, but in these people's minds, wouldn't their first priority be making sure everyone was ok and along with being swamped with having to replace what was lost? Like what was claimed in the article, you're sounding a little insensitive. | | mob (banned)On the next level..
join:2000-10-07
San Jose, CA |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Isnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges? When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive. If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. Since one can no longer simply attach their television to a coaxial cable, it's the responsibility of the cable company to bear all costs associated with the devices needed. The tenants and property owner should bear no cost or liability due to the forced use of a set top boxes. | |
3 recommendations |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Isnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges? When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive. If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. Yes, there is. And the cable company can also insure their equipment against such losses, and their insurance company can file a claim against the renters' insurance companies for that loss. There's also the issue of who was responsible for the fire. It could have been an electrical fault, which means the complex owner, the power company, or an electrician could have been at fault. It might have been a gas leak, a neighbor burning leaves, or a car that caught on fire. We simply don't know. That would be something the fire department would investigate, and, after that is done, it would be clearer who was responsible for paying. I'm not saying that the renters aren't responsible, and I'm not saying that the cable company should simply ignore their loss, but it's in extremely poor taste to immediately demand money from people who may have just lost all their belongings for a stupid cable box. | | baineschile2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
2 edits |
to Chris 313
Absolutely, the life is pricless, and that should be the first concern.
Terrible things happen, I dont mean to be insensitive about it. All I am saying is, in the 4 apartment complex's i have lived in here in MI, renters insurance was REQUIRED in each case, and would have covered the equipment (along with most of my other personal belongings).
If your house burns down (god forbid), and you dont have homeowners insurance, do you think that mortgage company that owns your note would throw up their hands and forgive all debt?
This is just an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. Anytime people can take a shot at a big company, they will. | | | baineschile |
to mob
No one is putting a gun to these peoples heads and forcing them to get the service. It was a service they wanted, and they agreed to the terms of it, including leasing a box.
Again, this boils down to the responsibility of homeowners and insurance, as I am sure they lost a lot more than just cable boxes. | | | baineschile |
to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:said by baineschile:Isnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges? When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive. If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. Yes, there is. And the cable company can also insure their equipment against such losses, and their insurance company can file a claim against the renters' insurance companies for that loss. There's also the issue of who was responsible for the fire. It could have been an electrical fault, which means the complex owner, the power company, or an electrician could have been at fault. It might have been a gas leak, a neighbor burning leaves, or a car that caught on fire. We simply don't know. That would be something the fire department would investigate, and, after that is done, it would be clearer who was responsible for paying. I'm not saying that the renters aren't responsible, and I'm not saying that the cable company should simply ignore their loss, but it's in extremely poor taste to immediately demand money from people who may have just lost all their belongings for a stupid cable box. Well said. | |  sholling
Premium Member
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA |
to baineschile
There is something called business insurance and the company should have insured their property. They failed to do so and should eat the loss. | |  woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA |
to baineschile
even if you have insurance, it would be a long time before it paid out, they always have to figure out the cause of the fire, and the person or renter of the cause of the fire is going to be blamed that is how it works, lawyers like to assign blame or a portion there of . So for them to go and start asking for money that quick is essentially useless and a really bad pr move on their part, peace | |  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2010-Nov-5 1:23 pm
They do need to ask for it somewhat soon so people remember to claim it to their insurance company. They should just go about it in a tactful way. | |  maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
1 recommendation |
to baineschile
Renters Insurance is also not mandatory like home owners insurance.... Even though you are technically responsible for the DVR, to demand $500 from someone that just lost everything they owned..... is rather harsh.
Also, if you rent a car from Hertz, and someone else runs into YOU (as in: the other party is deemed 100% at fault), you will have to pay for the damages, but you can then claim back those damages from the insurance of the party that was at fault.
In this case a fire was started in an apartment building, and we can safely assume that it was not the fault of all people living in those apartments... at best, it was the responsibility of ONE of the tenants, or it was the responsibility of the owner that did e.g. poor maintenance.
What it really is.... is poor judgment by the cable company. Yeah they lost some money, but the customers could also have been customers for many many years and already have paid for those DVR's in profits.
To go after someone that just lost everything for $500, is just poor taste. | | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
to baineschile
The cable company though should have the ability to wait for the 500 bucks until the insurance pays out. if its on the actual cable bill its due at month end weather or not the insurance has paid yet. | | | Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180
|
to baineschile
said by baineschile:No one is putting a gun to these peoples heads and forcing them to get the service. It was a service they wanted, and they agreed to the terms of it, including leasing a box. Again, this boils down to the responsibility of homeowners and insurance, as I am sure they lost a lot more than just cable boxes. digital tv.. i live in the middle of the city, i cant pick up OTA with out an outdoor antenna. i rent. im not arguing FCC regs with my landloard just to get kicked out a few months later. "just" $130 a year to some one on ssi dont fly. so sorry homie. if my stuff goes up they can sue me for the box. but at $674 a month in income, good luck recooping it. they dont like it, deliver digital in clear QAM with NO box required. untill then and untill such time as OTA gets "fixed" the cable co's can accept the risk. | | | |
to baineschile
"Anytime people can take a shot at a big company, they will."
And, do you have a point?
Of course they do, insert any "big company" here, and have they shown so much as sympathy (no they haven't), ok empathy (no they don't even manage that). People take "shots" at big company's because those companies don't do anything to deserve respect or sympathy/empathy from consumer's, if company's actually acted like they "care" people would care back, but they don't. | | | |
to baineschile
But it is not the same thing as simply destroying a rental car. I agree if I was negligent and spilled a liquid, dropped it, crushed the set top box somehow, etc.; I am responsible for those actions and should pay up. However, most boxes were destroyed in a fire that the owner of the box had little to nothing to do with. Going back to the rental car analogy, who is responsible if the another driver crashes into the car and totals our rental car? Isn't blame normally assigned to some party to car accident? | | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
to Chris 313
said by Chris 313:said by baineschile:Isnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges? When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive. If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. Sure, I get what your saying, but in these people's minds, wouldn't their first priority be making sure everyone was ok and along with being swamped with having to replace what was lost? Like what was claimed in the article, you're sounding a little insensitive. How is he sounding insensitive? he's 100% absolutely right.. bot legally AND morally. You're not looking at this correctly one bit. In a fire, yes, #1 is to make sure people are safe. End of discussion - right there. Now, let's rewind. Where was the responsibility of these subscribers (renters/home owners) BEFORE the fire? When a fire happens that when it's time to think about getting your ass out and getting to safety.. BEFORE the fire happens is when you think about protecting your self from these kinds of tragedies.. NOT after. Sorry.. not insensitive on his or even the cable companies part.. it's the lack of planning and carelessness of the people that didn't take the steps to protect themselves. The next argument ALWAYS made in these stories and after someone like me posts reality is that it's too expensive to afford insurance for some people.. well, just look at the irony that someone had a "cable box" in their home in the first place that got destroyed in a fire. Can't afford to protect yourself, you can't afford cable. In the end, it's far much more than about a cable box.. these people lost everything and if they don't have insurance to replace their losses, well.. sorry.. I've carried insurance on my rental back to the day I was 18.. it's cheap coverage. Upwards of $12 a month these people would not only not have to worry about the cable box, but their belongings as well.. I think the cable company should continue to hold them to the damaged equipment - people need to stop thinking the cable companies need to be the end all of charity to everyone in need. Who's now going to get the finger for the rest of the lost and destroyed property in the fire? It will only sound insensitive to those that don't have a grasp on common sense in life. EVERYONE signs up for cable also agrees to be responsible for lost, stolen, damaged equipment.. nothing in there says "unless your house burned down, you have no insurance.. etc".. I suppose if the rental car you don't have insurance on got slammed into by a drunk drive and you were injured that the rental car company should feel sorry for ya? Multiply that now by all the number of times it happens.. and now you've set a prescience that it's okay to not cover yourself from accidents or damages.. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. There is a very good reason to hold the sub responsible for the burned up equipment. Down the road, after the investigation, they may find that someone else is liable for it and DOES have insurance to cover this.. so why shouldn't the cable company be in life to get compensated too? And why is it that some of you guys are just waiting in line to find a reason to bastardize the cable company in these cases and not everyone else right with them? Common sense and responsibility is the only logic that wins in the end every time. | | | fiberguy2 |
to woody7
You obviously haven't had a renters or home owners claim have you?
it doesn't take a "long time before it paid out"... I just put a claim in on my house for weather damage and the check was in my hand with in 5 days.. One of my motorcycles was wrecked.. the claim was paid that same week. Most vehicle property claims are paid quickly too..
Sorry.. but that's not one that flies.
Insurance companies typically pay their covered and then fight each other to square up. Where people DON'T get paid quickly is when there is a question of actual coverage.. ie: was the water damage from flooding or other sources..
They didn't just go ask "that quick".. the accounts were probably stopped, the reason why was asked, and the equipment gets charged.. that's how business works and there is NOTHING wrong with that. This part of the entire equation, too, will all get sorted out as time comes.
I swear, you guys make it sound like the cable company sent hired goons out with bats to beat the money out of the customers.. I know it makes for an incredible "I'm outraged" feel good moment.. but you're also putting far more emotion into this. | | fiberguy2
1 recommendation |
to ZachAttack3
Business is business. they're not there to show sympathy.. they're not your mother.. they're not your family.. they're not your friend.. and the same is in return.
They can most certainly, and SHOULD, agree that they can give these customers time to sort things out. Things like fire and disasters ARE big events in people's lives and its going to take more time.. this is where there can be a little understanding on the part of business. However, in the reality of it all, life continues to go on. Had the people had insured themselves, the issue becomes much easier - still , just taking some time.
I can also assure you that there are MANY cases where people ARE insured for loss and they STILL expect the cable company to just write off the equipment.. it happens FAR more than you think.
ANY home owner with a house is going to have home owner's insurance as required by the lender... you'd be amazed how replacing their own personal items become far more pressing than taking care of their contractual obligations.
This is all good and stuff, but this blog post today is just another feel-good and bash big business material. | | | fiberguy2 |
to thedragonmas
"they dont like it, deliver digital in clear QAM with NO box required. untill then and untill such time as OTA gets "fixed" the cable co's can accept the risk."
Are you hearing yourself??
.. now this is about delivering in clear QAM? This is the most ridiculous argument I ever heard before in my life. You know how many people on SSI I know that have HBO? some people that stay at home consider this their only entertainment.. they don't go out.. they find value in this.
Is it about the price? the box? clear QAM? What?
Fine.. take out the box.. who is going to get the blame and be the one to feel sorry for the person who's TV that is capable of clear QAM goes up in smoke?
Again, so many holes in your post.. if someone is on SSI, maybe they shouldn't be having cable at all.. free and clear OTA sounds more the way to go.. if they can't afford to insure what they do have, then maybe cable tv isn't on the list. | | | fiberguy2 |
to maartena
said by maartena:Renters Insurance is also not mandatory like home owners insurance.... Even though you are technically responsible for the DVR, to demand $500 from someone that just lost everything they owned..... is rather harsh. Here's the flip side of your argument while you support the lack of personal responsibility... .. what if that very person who's being demanded $500 of by the cable company was the one, in the group, responsible for starting the fire? ... where's the landlord in all this saying the same thing when he himself loses everything? Why is it, with some people, ALWAYS the responsibility of others to be the one insured while the "poor guy that just lost everything.. well, he's been through enough".. maybe that poor guy just put the landlord through a lot, too, if HE started the fire. In this country, like it or not, you insure yourself.. you don't sit back and let others write things off... Like I said in earlier posts.. yes, it's a big bleeding heart feel good position to take about "he just lost everything" position.. but again, you're not supposed to think about insuring yourself and protecting yourself AFTER the fact.. you think about it in the future. This is the same about health insurance.. there are many (mostly young) people that don't think they need health insurance so they don't buy it.. then they get ill suddenly and then wish they had it and wonder why they can't get their pre-existing condition covered. News flash, I don't feel sorry for them either. People often will save a buck on necessities so they can buy, well, in their mind, necessities.. like eating out, iPods, fancy clothing.. etc. And how do you know they 'went after them".. at what point is it okay to close the account and note the equipment as lost/damaged and generate the bill? Sorry, but I don't think businesses of the size that serve the masses have a "don't send this guy a bill because he just had a fire" switch in the billing system.. I don't even think that would be considered legal. | |  sivranVive Vivaldi
Premium Member
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX |
to baineschile
Isn't homeowner's insurance kinda-sorta built-in/required when you have a mortgage? It was for my dad. | |  ebgbjoSewing is cheaper than therapy
Premium Member
join:2007-09-14
USA |
to fiberguy2
Not necessarily true. My husband's co-worker lost his house due to a fire last year. It took almost 2 months before he even saw a little bit of the money from his insurance company. Because of the nature of the fire, they refused to pay anything out, even one cent, until a complete investigation report was conducted by the fire department then sent to them (the insurance company) for review before they wanted to settle anything. | | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
You said it best.. "because of the nature of the fire"... If the policy has an exclusion and the fire appears to be, based on the initial report, to be part of that exclusion, then yea, the insurance company is going to hold off until the report is complete - that's normal. Insurance policies don't just pay out due to a loss. But you are right when you said "not necessarily true".. there ARE going to be cases where people don't get paid right away.. and again, that's normal. Say that insurance company DID pay out and say the report came back and the loss was in fact NOT covered.. then it comes down to the insurance company being the bad guys when they come knocking for their money back, right? I mean, the guy suffered enough already right? In clear cut cases, yes, they pay out right away. In my case, as I stated, the adjusted was out and a check showed up with their report.. I told them I wasn't in agreement and wanted them to talk to my contractor.. their answer was simple.. "we have to send a check anyway.. it doesn't mean that you have to accept it, but the law requires we send it".. I challenged it and in a few weeks the insurance company is changing their tune. It's how things work.  | | | fiberguy2 |
to sivran
said by sivran:Isn't homeowner's insurance kinda-sorta built-in/required when you have a mortgage? It was for my dad. It is.. but policies can lapse. If you have an FHA, your home owners is wrapped up into the escrow account and loan. You pay your insurance premium to the bank. In a traditional loan, you can pay directly to the insurance company once a year in advance. If your policy has lapsed, however, you're not covered. Some banks will retain the right if you don't insure, they will insure the property FOR you, but it only covers their interest, not yours.. this is the same as auto finance. If you drop your insurance, the finance company will insure the property, but not you or the other guy.. and I bet you'd MUCH rather get your own police when you see what they charge. | | | fiberguy2 |
to maartena
said by maartena:Also, if you rent a car from Hertz, and someone else runs into YOU (as in: the other party is deemed 100% at fault), you will have to pay for the damages, but you can then claim back those damages from the insurance of the party that was at fault. just one small note on this particular statement... I can tell you live in California. ... No-fault insurance exists in many states, unlike California, where what you just said would not be valid. In a no-fault state, you pay for your damage, they pay for theirs.. ie "no fault".. and if the other person isn't insured, that's where un-insured and UNDER-Insured* (*required in MN) pays.. the insurance companies battle it out with each other. YOU can't sue the other person for property and often not for injury either in most cases.. This would be a classic example of where a state gets it right when ti comes to personal responsibility. Also, in your post, too, another classic example of where many here would hate to learn this fact, but if you wreck that Hertz car, or even if its not YOUR fault for what ever damage,.. Hertz WILL charge the renter for loss of rental income of the car as well for however many days the car is out of service. They may not even be sold out in that class while it's under repair, but you still agree to pay for loss of income - and they do go after it. Like many people here are upset about how CableOne is going after someone for suffering a loss.. this is very much common practice and really isn't anything wrong with it. | | | |
to mob
Re: cable boxCustomers in many area are able to attach the cable to the tv, with no *forced* cable box. I have a tv with direct hookup and standard channels. And hundreds, if not thousands, TWC subs have that option as well. Comcast now requires at least a digital adapter. However, a DVR is an upgraded cable box - a choice made by the subscriber.
My fire preparation kit is a fireproof safe with all my valuable papers. I take my purse, cell phone and car keys to my bedroom each night and have a flashlight there as well. There is extra clothing and shoes in my car. My other valuable possession is my pet. I've carried renters and/or home insurance for 26 years.
I've never given a thought to saving my cable box but will certainly keep that in mind now. However I understand my subscriber agreement and agree that I would charged for the loss.
| | | |
to baineschile
Re: Umsaid by baineschile:Absolutely, the life is pricless, and that should be the first concern. Terrible things happen, I dont mean to be insensitive about it. All I am saying is, in the 4 apartment complex's i have lived in here in MI, renters insurance was REQUIRED in each case, and would have covered the equipment (along with most of my other personal belongings). If your house burns down (god forbid), and you dont have homeowners insurance, do you think that mortgage company that owns your note would throw up their hands and forgive all debt? This is just an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. Anytime people can take a shot at a big company, they will. Mortgage company is owed, most likely, $100,000+. Cable company is owed $500. The fact of the matter is that the timing was the problem. No one says they anything about insurance, but rather give the family a chance to recover as these things are not fun to deal with. I would say wait at least 30 days before contacting them about this. | | id09542
join:2002-04-25
Bloomington, IL |
to NightOwl0
Re: cable boxThis is by far the minority. I have Comcast and it is either a forced box or DTA which is still a box. I want to use my TV's remote and its functions, but can't, I must use Comcast's remote/box even for basic cable. $15/month for one TV box is ridiculous | | | |
to fiberguy2
Re: Um"This is all good and stuff, but this blog post today is just another feel-good and bash big business material."
Again, and? The point is? People hate big business. Not despite that they're uncaring but because of it. People don't care about the business's losses, and could care less if they lose money or fail. Saying like "business is business" doesn't garner good will. Heaven forbid I ever have a house fire, I know what I'd do grab the blackened box drop it off at the local office and say go eff yourselves. | | Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180
|
to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:"they dont like it, deliver digital in clear QAM with NO box required. untill then and untill such time as OTA gets "fixed" the cable co's can accept the risk." Are you hearing yourself?? .. now this is about delivering in clear QAM? This is the most ridiculous argument I ever heard before in my life. You know how many people on SSI I know that have HBO? some people that stay at home consider this their only entertainment.. they don't go out.. they find value in this. Is it about the price? the box? clear QAM? What? Fine.. take out the box.. who is going to get the blame and be the one to feel sorry for the person who's TV that is capable of clear QAM goes up in smoke? Again, so many holes in your post.. if someone is on SSI, maybe they shouldn't be having cable at all.. free and clear OTA sounds more the way to go.. if they can't afford to insure what they do have, then maybe cable tv isn't on the list. who the hell said i had HBO? homie many cable OP's require the box for BASIC cable now a days. edit: and did you bother read the part where i cant GET FREE OTA THANKS TO THE DIGITAL TRANSITION? there now that its in caps mayble you see it this time around. said by fiberguy2:said by Chris 313:said by baineschile:Isnt there something called renters insurance? Sorry, but you lease the equipment from the company. If that gets destroyed, why should the company eat the charges? When I lived in a townhome, my renters insurance was like $130 for the whole year, it wasnt too terribly expensive. If you rent a car from Hertz, and you destroy it, you have to pay for it (assuming you didnt have insurance). Same principal here. Sure, I get what your saying, but in these people's minds, wouldn't their first priority be making sure everyone was ok and along with being swamped with having to replace what was lost? Like what was claimed in the article, you're sounding a little insensitive. How is he sounding insensitive? he's 100% absolutely right.. bot legally AND morally. You're not looking at this correctly one bit. In a fire, yes, #1 is to make sure people are safe. End of discussion - right there. Now, let's rewind. Where was the responsibility of these subscribers (renters/home owners) BEFORE the fire? When a fire happens that when it's time to think about getting your ass out and getting to safety.. BEFORE the fire happens is when you think about protecting your self from these kinds of tragedies.. NOT after. Sorry.. not insensitive on his or even the cable companies part.. it's the lack of planning and carelessness of the people that didn't take the steps to protect themselves. The next argument ALWAYS made in these stories and after someone like me posts reality is that it's too expensive to afford insurance for some people.. well, just look at the irony that someone had a "cable box" in their home in the first place that got destroyed in a fire. Can't afford to protect yourself, you can't afford cable. In the end, it's far much more than about a cable box.. these people lost everything and if they don't have insurance to replace their losses, well.. sorry.. I've carried insurance on my rental back to the day I was 18.. it's cheap coverage. Upwards of $12 a month these people would not only not have to worry about the cable box, but their belongings as well.. I think the cable company should continue to hold them to the damaged equipment - people need to stop thinking the cable companies need to be the end all of charity to everyone in need. Who's now going to get the finger for the rest of the lost and destroyed property in the fire? It will only sound insensitive to those that don't have a grasp on common sense in life. EVERYONE signs up for cable also agrees to be responsible for lost, stolen, damaged equipment.. nothing in there says "unless your house burned down, you have no insurance.. etc".. I suppose if the rental car you don't have insurance on got slammed into by a drunk drive and you were injured that the rental car company should feel sorry for ya? Multiply that now by all the number of times it happens.. and now you've set a prescience that it's okay to not cover yourself from accidents or damages.. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. There is a very good reason to hold the sub responsible for the burned up equipment. Down the road, after the investigation, they may find that someone else is liable for it and DOES have insurance to cover this.. so why shouldn't the cable company be in life to get compensated too? And why is it that some of you guys are just waiting in line to find a reason to bastardize the cable company in these cases and not everyone else right with them? Common sense and responsibility is the only logic that wins in the end every time. i wonna know where your pulling $12 from. in case you havent noticed rates are based on credit score. if you have NO credit history (like my dad) your rate is sky high as they treat it as bad credit. same goes for renters insurance. the fact a credit card company went under and closed my account dropped my score to 560. you know what that equates to for renters insurance even though it has NOTHING to do with my ability to pay bills? yeah, a hell of a lot more than $12 per month. | |
|
·
·
