1827
1828

TIL after Hurricane Ike in 2008, Comcast customers were billed for unreturned equipment that had been destroyed by the hurricane. Customers were charged as much as $1000 for failing to return modems, DVRs, and other equipment that had been lost or destroyed. (en.wikipedia.org)

r3ll1sh1 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Isaacheus -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Yeah, but it should have been through their own insurance, rather than the homeowners.

Or at least, to most people that would seen more ethical

[–]kepleronlyknows [非表示スコア]  (5子コメント)

If you lease a car, do you expect the car company to pay your insurance and cover your car? Of course not.

Comcast had the contractual right. Doesn't mean they had to play hardball, but just that they could.

[–]mandru [非表示スコア]  (3子コメント)

Not trying to be rude but actually explain from an economic point of view.

Leasing a car is like lending money, there is a chance the person you are lending the money to will not give it back (btw this is how most banks calculate their interest rated - that is why you have a lower interests rate on mortgages then you have on credit cards).

In conclusion, the risk always lies with the lender, if that risk needs to be covered (insured) it should have insurance.

[–]kepleronlyknows [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

The dealer is insured to insulate themselves from defaulters (I think that's your point?), but the lessee is still the one paying regular car insurance.

[–]PaulPocket [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

And that's of course why part of the contractual obligation I have when I lease a car is to carry collision and comprehensive insurance (complete coverage) over my automobile that names the lessor/owner of the vehicle as a loss payee...

Or when I buy a house with a mortgage the lender insists on my paying for property insurance to cover their loss, and in fact in many times will ensure that I do so by making me pay more per month for my house to fund an escrow account out of which said insurance (and property taxes) are paid.

Not trying to be rude but actually explain from an economic point of view.

[–]umop3p1sdn [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Gross oversimplification. The cost to insure is on the lessee in ANY loan/lease from a bank. The banks insure their return with interest rates and default penalties, as I'm sure Comcast would. The product has assumed ownership by the lessee. Along with all maintenance, damages, or otherwise IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES. Sorry, you're just wrong.

[–]Choralone [非表示スコア]  (11子コメント)

Why? The customers were the ones responsible for the equipment if damaged.

What if it wasn't a hurricane.. pretend some guy accidentally burned down his own house. Should his own insurance not cover the cost? Why should comcasts for something they had nothing to do with and no responsibility in?

[–]sayhispaceships [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

There is an example of that right above you in the comments. Assuming he's telling the truth, DirecTV had their equipment covered by their own insurance in that house fire, and they handled it all.

[–]cayoloco [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

I know this is a foreign concept for Big Telecom, but for a little something called " good will gestures".

[–]PaulPocket [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

and when it happens on a large enough scale, are they just supposed to eat tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost assets out of "goodwill" - or perhaps maybe they should try to collect upon any and all available insurance there may be?

[–]TangoZuluMike [非表示スコア]  (7子コメント)

The problem here is that the same goes for the customers. They didn't elect to have a hurricane destroy everything, it was 100% beyond their control.

[–]bluurd [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

This is why you carry insurance policies.

[–]DietCherrySoda [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

They "elect" to accept the risk of hurricane when they live there. If I let some guy borrow my stuff and his house is destroyed, why should I cover it?

[–]welcometotheregime [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

That is not a good excuse. If a major natural disaster can wipe out your livelihood, you should have insurance to protect against it.

If you bought a new car for $25,000 and a hurricane put it underwater the next week, do you really expect the bank to forgive your $25,000 because you failed to keep insurance? I think not.

I hate Comcast as much as the next guy, but you cannot be mad at them for charging you for equipment you lost/destroyed.

[–]Jipperson [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

It doesn't matter, it was the customers responsibility to look after the equipment because Comcast put it in their care.

[–]Malkavon [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Force majeure/act of god clauses would indemnify the customer in precisely this scenario, assuming they were included in the contract.

[–]Choralone [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Responsibility for something is not about your intent... it's about who had custody of the thing, regardless of what happened. If you want a third party to take responsibilty for accidents beyond your control, that's exactly what insurance is for.

If I lend you something and something happens to it on your watch, you owe me that thing. If I lend you a hundred bucks and someone robs you, you still owe me a hundred bucks... even though it wasn't your intent and it was beyond your control.

[–]Choralone [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

That's irrelevant.. it's not about intent. It's about who was responsible for it at the time.

If I lend you my lawnmower, and your house gets broken into and it gets stolen - you owe me a lawnmower.

I lent it to you, I want it back.