dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
772
share rss forum feed


Cjones

@rogers.com

What's the surprise?

A corporation's goal, its only goal, is to make money. Why is it at all surprising that the company should act without compassion? Why is compassion expected? This company is acting exactly like a company must act, after all, a few minutes on the evening news, even if it gets that far, which it wohn't, won't be too much of a problem, given that so many people must, because of their location, either use their cable company or just do without television and high-speed internet. That last option is one which most people won't touch.
My problem is with the people involved in the decision. They are supposed to be compassionate, merely as the price of being human. The problem isn't that a company should act this way, it's that people act this way. If my employer expects me to make trouble for people who have already suffered a disaster, it's time for me to leave and, if need be, starve.



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Charging $20 to not provide service? Yeah, that's a great business model--money for nothin'.



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to Cjones

said by Cjones :

A corporation's goal, its only goal, is to make money.

Perhaps making money should be the result of the goals that they set, but not the goal itself? Any company that provides a service would be wise to consider their customers. Although, you need legitimate competition for the wheel to go round.

»www.forbes.com/sites/stevedennin···e-money/


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Cjones

I don't see this as a compassion issue. It seems that pissing off a customer with a fee is how you permanently lose a subscriber. Plus the bad press would make you lose even more.

You're right, it's about money and it seems damn little money to be gotten for the potential consequences of lost subs and bad PR.



Cjones

@rogers.com
reply to jmn1207

said by jmn1207 See Profile
Perhaps making money should be the result of the goals that they set, but not the goal itself?[/BQUOTE :

Here, piggy piggy piggy, come over here, I have some lipstick for you...
Seriously, if the action is undertaken to make money, whether that action be radical management, compassionate billing, or delivering 50000 volts to your customers via the fingers, then the goal is to make money. The goal may be pursued in many different ways, some morally better than others, but the goal is to make money in the end. Put it this way. Would any of the companies that use, just to take the example, radical management, or which say that they want to "delight the customer", be doing so if it didn't make money for them, in one way or the other? I would be stunned if they would. That's why the blogger points out that his method makes more money for the company than other methods, if it didn't, he would never be able to sell it. The point is to make as much money as possible. How you get there is up to you.



Cjones

@rogers.com
reply to skeechan

said by skeechan:

I don't see this as a compassion issue. It seems that pissing off a customer with a fee is how you permanently lose a subscriber. Plus the bad press would make you lose even more.

With respect, I think you are leaving out of the mix the fact that cable companies are in a special market. For their internet service, they have either one competitor or none in most cases. For their television service, they have either one competitor or none in most cases. The only really healthy competition seems to be in phone services, and that's only if you include all VOIP and cellular providers. The other problem, as shown by the prices for the services, is that doing without TV and internet isn't on the radar for most people in North America. Therefore, all the bad PR in the world won't make much difference, the market is stable. The only loss which is probable is the loss of the customers themselves, and there's an argument to be made that many of them won't be using the service for a while, anyway. It costs more to make exceptions, train CS people, and so on, it's just easier to charge the fees, the downside isn't that big. As I said, I blame the people who do this when ordered. To blame the company is like blaming the snake for biting, what's the point, it's built that way.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to mod_wastrel

said by mod_wastrel:

Charging $20 to not provide service? Yeah, that's a great business model--money for nothin'.

Why didn't people just flat out TERMINATE Comcast service and not accept that vacation fee nonsense. The only reason for a vacation fee is so that you don't pay an install fee when you resume. But if your house is destroyed you are not going to resume anytime soon. After a few months, vacation fees would exceed whatever a new install fee would be.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/



cjones

@rogers.com

said by FFH:

Why didn't people just flat out TERMINATE Comcast service and not accept that vacation fee nonsense.

I'm thinking it's because if the customers cancel, they need to pay for the equipment before the insurance gets around to paying them. Alternatively, they may not have gotten around to cancelling for a few weeks and thus be charged for a month's "vacation".


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to Cjones

For HSI I would agree but for video services they have at least two (DirecTV or Dish Network) and possibly a telco.



ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

said by mod_wastrel:

Charging $20 to not provide service? Yeah, that's a great business model--money for nothin'.

Why didn't people just flat out TERMINATE Comcast service and not accept that vacation fee nonsense. The only reason for a vacation fee is so that you don't pay an install fee when you resume. But if your house is destroyed you are not going to resume anytime soon. After a few months, vacation fees would exceed whatever a new install fee would be.

What about if you are in contract?
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by ptrowski:

said by FFH:

said by mod_wastrel:

Charging $20 to not provide service? Yeah, that's a great business model--money for nothin'.

Why didn't people just flat out TERMINATE Comcast service and not accept that vacation fee nonsense. The only reason for a vacation fee is so that you don't pay an install fee when you resume. But if your house is destroyed you are not going to resume anytime soon. After a few months, vacation fees would exceed whatever a new install fee would be.

What about if you are in contract?

Didn't think about that. I have been month to month for years.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to skeechan

said by skeechan:

For HSI I would agree but for video services they have at least two (DirecTV or Dish Network) and possibly a telco.

Why do they have at least two? I would not. This condo building does not have any windows or lanais that face the south. They logically face the ocean here (north). We have ONE choice here. TWC.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Cjones

@rogers.com
reply to skeechan

said by skeechan:

For HSI I would agree but for video services they have at least two (DirecTV or Dish Network) and possibly a telco.

True enough, and there's OTA, but all of these are impractical for a wide swath of users. dishes, like antennas, require putting up and many renters may not get permission to put the dish up or to run the wire. Many people may not have access to the south or to an OTA signal. Many people may want something other than OTA stations. Many people may be stuck with a bundle, and switching to someone who doesn't offer HSI for their TV may not work well, they wouldn't want to do such a thing for principle. I'd still say the market is stable, and the company in this case has nothing to fear.


Cjones

@rogers.com
reply to ptrowski

What about if you are in contract?

Don't the contracts end if you move to a place where the cable doesn't run?


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to cjones

said by cjones :

said by FFH:

Why didn't people just flat out TERMINATE Comcast service and not accept that vacation fee nonsense.

I'm thinking it's because if the customers cancel, they need to pay for the equipment before the insurance gets around to paying them. Alternatively, they may not have gotten around to cancelling for a few weeks and thus be charged for a month's "vacation".

Ever filed a claim??? .. ever been in this situation before??? .. I'm guessing not. If you were, or ever had to deal with this situation before, then you'd realize that the checks are typically written pretty quick and you're usually back on your way. There are also immediate checks that are written to the home owner for immediate living and it's not exactly a small amount either. There is also the checks they write for the lost contents of the home as well. As for the rebuilding of the structure, well, that check tends to take a bit longer as they don't simply write that to the home owner to deposit into their checking accounts.

Again, I believe that these news blogs are way over blown and people LOVE to sensationalize these things because, you know, if it was said on the internet it must be true.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

You act like this has never been discussed before. We have seen companies, including Comcast, act this way in similar situations before.



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Cjones

You can come up with a tides-high, planets aligned, dogs-cats living together example of why Comcast is their only hope for happiness in the universe, but that isn't typical. The vast majority of people have multiple choices for video services including those in the disaster areas. You're getting down to those who live in north facing apartments.

Comcast's rigorous multi-million dollar advertising budget is evidence of the competition they face.

This simply isn't smart business by Comcast. It will not generate any revenue and only buy them bad PR and canceling subscribers.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to ptrowski

said by ptrowski:

You act like this has never been discussed before. We have seen companies, including Comcast, act this way in similar situations before.

Yea...? and?? my response has always been the same. I dont' act like this has never been discussed before,.. no different than everyone else that rushes in here to sheeple Karl's posts about them, right?

This is business as usual, as it should be.. sorry if it sounds cold and harsh, but it's reality.

Do you even know why we are educated on why we should insure BEFORE a disaster happens?

My stance will never change... sorry. For every month that I have to give up some pleasures in life so that I can write those checks to home owners, car insurance, health insurance, and pet health insurance, while others run around with different priorities, my stance won't change.. not one bit. Young people claim they can't afford renters insurance... ironically, that renters would cover that iPhone of theirs if it were ever stolen.

I'm still curious.. how many of these people who are outraged about comcast's position on having to pay for the box are insured?

Just as disastrous a burglary/break-in is, or a house fire is, the resident is still responsible. Again, this is why we insure BEFORE an accident happens.

So again.. and???


Cjones

@rogers.com

Ladies and gentlemen, we see here before us the four great problems of the North American mind.
1. A completely closed mind...

"My stance will never change... sorry"

2. An inability to read and consider, insurance is not mentioned in the article...
"Do you even know why we are educated on why we should insure BEFORE a disaster happens?"

3. Selfishness, and the desperate need to drag others down into the servitude which the author experiences, and which he thinks is not only normal but praiseworthy...

"For every month that I have to give up some pleasures in life so that I can write those checks to home owners, car insurance, health insurance, and pet health insurance, while others run around with different priorities"

4. The elevation of business, defined as the constant desire for more money, into some sort of natural law. Gravity is reality, this is just a bunch of greedy people wanting as much as they can get...

"This is business as usual, as it should be.. sorry if it sounds cold and harsh, but it's reality."

I thank the author for putting the position so clearly, I would try to change his mind, but it's pointless, see 1. This is the view of many people on this continent. I hope its folly is evident, at least to the people who aren't yet locked into it.



Cjones

@rogers.com
reply to skeechan

I raised around four groups of people who would probably fail to discontinue their service in response to this sort of thing, and they are significantly large groups. The advertising budget proves not that there is competition, but that very few people subscribe to every single service the cable company offers at its best/most expensive. You can always upgrade to something bigger. I am not saying that they won't lose subscribers over this, I'm just saying that the company probably shouldn't care, it isn't enough to make things interesting.


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to fiberguy

I didn't realize Iphones cost OVER $500. Even if they do cost say $550 the renter would get a $50 check for their Iphone from the insurer assuming they have a $500 deductible which is standard here for renter's insurance that most insurance companies including the "vaunted" State Farm will not issue in this state. Renter's insurance is very expensive. I can't afford full coverage for the contents of my condo I rent. Additionally, almost NO insurance companies offer Replacement Value but cash value only to renters which means the insurance is not worth it unless you have just made some big, expensive purchases of electronics or furniture (or you need it for liability purposes as you have some savings for your elder years for instance). Jewelry is not covered unless under a separate policy which is also very expensive. So, of course, most renters don't have insurance. The company that I have coverage with (a local company as none of the big ones will do renters insurance here at least not with Replacement Value) advised me to only cover PART of my contents because they apologized that full coverage would be astronomically expensive. So, yeah, most renters don't have coverage.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to fiberguy

Sheeple, original one. Yet you continue to post. This is not a single event like your burglary example, it affected quite a few people so any company should show a bit of compassion in these types of circumstances. You have families who lost their houses, their pictures, heirlooms, whatever. So the last thing I am sure they want to hear is to pay $20 a month to pay for service when they may not even have a living room to watch it in.

My stance is not going to change either so we can call it a draw.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org