CableOne Pissed You Didn't Save Your DVR In Apartment Fire

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.

said by fiberguy:

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.

said by ZachAttack:

Dude, I have an MBA and I still think business people are scum. I work hard also, and don't have some subconscious jealousy of people with money.

I'm sorry but this was a scummy thing to do, these stupid boxes which are "valued" at $500, but which MSO's do not pay near that amount for, should be amortized on the books, so by the time you do lose a unit or 50, you don't have to take a hit. That's how I'd run my business.

The MSO's are not selling me a box they're selling me a service, and the stupid box DVR or not is just an access point into the network. It's much more lucrative to sell VOD, or Premium Services than it is to claim $500 for a crappy piece of plastic box, and lose the customer to DirecTV or Dish, because my crappy henchman were too worried about recouping the imaginary "value" of the stupid access device, meanwhile the potential income from selling them Digital Cable plus HBO, plus VOD just went out the window.

said by sivran:

Isn't homeowner's insurance kinda-sorta built-in/required when you have a mortgage? It was for my dad.

said 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.

said by Chris 313:

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.

said by fiberguy:

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.

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.

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.

said by fiberguy:

"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.

said by fiberguy:

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.

said by fiberguy:

Renters insurance, unless its different in your area, generally is not influenced by your credit score. Perhaps you're thinking auto..

Ignorance of reality will get you no where.

said by baineschile:

If you are on SSI, you PROBABLY shouldnt be renting a DVR, which most consider "luxury". And no matter what anyones income is, you still should have insurance on the property you live in.

said by thedragonmas:

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.

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.

said by ISurfTooMuch:

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.

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.

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.

said by kataan:

In my town an 80 apartment complex burnt down about 5 days ago. I wounder how long before we hear on the news of Comcast trying to pull the vary same thing CableOne is.

Frankly, the last thing I am going to worry about saving is the cable box first come the family and the pets... the box can burn!

said by Chris 313:

I heard that. I had Comcast at my old apartment complex and the fire started behind the wall in my bedroom. One of the few things I'd have grabbed, if anything on the way out, would've been my external HD that had my computer's backups. The rest is easily replaced. Luckily, I got real lucky and moved before the fire happened. I'd love to see what happens from Comcast's POV in relation to this, given Comcast's poor response in dealing with hurricane relief in Texas, if memory serves

Customer service after Hurricane Ike

Shortly after Hurricane Ike hit the Houston, Texas, area customers received bills and later collection notices for unreturned equipment that was destroyed during the storm. One customer reported a $931 bill which included a $66 credit for interrupted phone service, but also included $1000 charge for not returning her rented DVR, Cable Modem, and other equipment. Comcast responses differed after the storm, with some Customer Care agents telling customers to file with their insurance providers, and other agents advising customers to return their equipment, even if it was ruined or moldy.

»abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti···=6460278

said by neufuse:

I'd just say send the bill to my insurance company, here's my policy ID and the insurance claim number...

said by neufuse:

I don't know what insurance policy you have but my home owners insurance INCLUDES personal property... my plan gives me about $300,000 for the house replacement and $250,000 for property in the house... I don't even have a deducatable for my HOI

said by chuckie1:

When Katrina hit, cableone didn't charge me for the destroyed cable box and cable modem i was renting from them.

Why wouldn't part of the fees i pay for renting the equipment go to cover cableone carying insurance on the equipment?