Comcast: Fire Destroyed Your Cable Box? Pay Up.
Here's one more thing to worry about when a fire destroys your home -- Comcast.
From NBC 10:
Fire victims from the Riverwalk at Millennium condominium complex told NBC10 and the property management of the apartment complex that Comcast is going to charge residents to replace any cable boxes destroyed in the fire.
NBC 10 contacted Comcast and the company said it's true.
Fire victims will have to cover the cost, but residents should get reimbursed by their insurance companies, whether they are renters or homeowners.
How much will fire victims have to pay?
"We don't share specific information about our costs, but they can vary depending on the type of box -- HD boxes, Digital Video Recorder, etc. We're doing all we can to accommodate our customers who were affected by the fire," a Comcast spokes person said.
“They have agreed to extend the due date for charges related to the damaged boxes until Nov. 15, which does allow the insurance companies for these residents time to process the claim and provide residents with funds for which to pay that due," said Lauren McDonald from Riverwalk Property
Comcast says they're not going to bill the fire victims for the cable they're not watching and will waive future installation fees.
Comcast Charging Residents For Equipment Lost In Condo Fire [NBC 10] (Thanks, Steve !)
Conshohocken Apartment Fire Ruled Accidental
[MyFoxPhilly]
(Photo: WTXF )
This is a test using rich text formatting and html links. It's the generic "company" ad that should appear on all posts with the Company category if they don't have an ad attached to a specific company.
Post a comment
Comments:
I side with Comcast on this one. Its not their fault the boxes were lost in a fire and it looks like they are being sort of lenient with the customers. That's what renter's insurance is for.
That is so nice of them not to charge for cable they can't watch, even better they aren't going to charge when the building is rebuilt and residents can watch TV again.
I am certainly no fan of comcast but why the hell shouldn't they be charging them residents?
Provided the people have renters insurance. There's a lawsuit starting anyway, so its one more piece of damage to add into the list.
"We don't share specific information about our costs, but they can vary depending on the type of box -- HD boxes, Digital Video Recorder, etc."
Yeah because if they did, then everyone would be outraged to know that they cost $40 and everyone is being hosed by spending $13/month to rent them.
Whats wrong with this? You have their property and it gets destroyed under your watch. This is why you have renters insurance.
Can't fault Comcast on this one. Of course, anyone that doesn't have insurance will have to handle the price themselves. I know here, Comcast charges $250 for the basic digital box if you don't return it. I have a friend whose house burned down this year and of course all 3 boxes were damaged either by water or fire. 1 was a basic digital box and the 2 others were HD boxes. Comcast waived all 3, not charging him anything for them. He said they told him to just trash them so I took them to see if I could clean them up/dry them out. I trashed them because they wouldn't even power on. He's now in his new home, with Comcast service and 3 new boxes.
@SpdRacer:
Under that idea if I buy a car from the dealership and someone steals it it isn't my fault. Why can't the dealership eat it?
They customers took responsibility for the boxes when they got them from comcast. If they want to try to sue the condominium complex for those damages as well as others then maybe. As it stands now they are responsible to comcast for those boxes.
This is 100% not Comcast's fault so why should they eat the cost of a cable box?
If you have insurance it should be covered, if not that's the price you pay for not insuring your belongings.
Hello renter's insurance! It's there for a reason, and you can't really ask Comcast (as much as I'd like to) to eat the cost of all those boxes.
If you don't have renter's insurace... oops. Maybe you'll know better next time.
They should pay only the ACTUAL wholesale value of the box... i.e. $20 to $40. But of course that will never happen without court or regulatory intervention.
(and if they're not paying the wholesale value of the box, then it's safe to say that Comcast is profiting from the fire)
@sprocket79: Actually, this is not true. Boxes cost cable companies anywhere from $250-$750 per box. They're not THAT much into ripping you off.
That Comcast. A real classy bunch. Not making the people pay for the cable in their burned down residences.
@SpdRacer: This isn't socialism. Just because corp A has more money than person B doesn't mean that corp A should have to pay for everything.
This is something covered under homeowners or renters insurance. Comcast shouldn't have to pay for this just because they can, and the residents are going to be paying either. If the residents didn't have insurance, well, they screwed up. Renters insurance is about $10 a month.
I'm with comcast as well on this one. Comcast did not cause the fire (which BTW, was a F******* HUGE fire), so they aren't responsible for the damage to the equipment. So the renter has to pay for it. The renter can then be reimbursed by either the insurance company or whoever is found responsible for the fire.
There are already class action suits in some states over whether it is legal to require cable box rental (no purchase option and no purchase from another company option). The legal precedent is the ruling on Bell Telephone that eliminated the monopoly on renting telephones that ended in the 1970's.
I have contacted an attorney regarding this matter in Illinois.
I wonder could one claim to have 'lost' their cable box. Be 'required' to purchase a replacement, then return a box and cancel the monthly rental? This would result in owning one box and eliminating perpetual rental.
@SkokieGuy: That'll work until the CableCo remotely disables your box or, more likely, writes it off in a database somewhere and your cable no-worky.
This was a huge fire...it was started by the construction company...someone left a welding torch on and unattended. Renters were REQUIRED to have rental insurance.
They are all upset about it AND I think comcast is dong well by not charging the cable and rehook-up AND giving them until November to pay up-so their insurance comes through.
Because we all know that they never reuse any equipment. I would go find the Charred and melted box and return it.
@BrianDaBrain: We're coasting pretty close to the 'blame the victim' line. Suggesting renter's insurance should cover the damage? Fine. But let's not be too smug or nasty about it, ok? This goes for everyone.
If you are renting a cable box and it is destroyed, then you are responsible for it (well your insurance is)
If not - then I guess I will go rent a car, wreak it, then say "O'well - I'm not using it anymore"
It does not work that way - I'm responsible for the wreaked rented car... well at least my insurance is.
How is this a consumerist issue?
I'm of the mindset that people need to pay up for these devices. It does suck that you have to rent them month to month, but they become your responsibility. This is exactly why insurance is there.
@SkokieGuy: They may just deactive the lost box, making it useless in that case.
@BrianDaBrain: A quick search of Google shows the most common brand(Scientific Atlanta) of converters is available for about $75-100$. So if the cable company is paying($250-$750 per box)that much for them they are getting seriously ripped off, but they aren't so it is their customers who are getting ripped off.
Time Warner charged me $32 when my cable modem was stolen. Insurance covered it in full since there was no depreciation.
@SkokieGuy: If you have one of those 2-way communicating boxes, who knows, maybe they'll know that it isn't supposed to be active on your account.
I like the class-action idea; though the idea of purchasing a box doesn't appeal to me too much. If I think about it, boxes today may be behind the curve in the next 2 years, and I won't be able to just ask for a new one.
What's the big deal here? You rent a box, it's destroyed, you pay for the box. Simple. This is why you need to evaluate whether renter's insurance is a good idea.
I think the real crime is requiring your customer to rent a box to access services they already pay for.
Unless the boxes caused the fire, I'm on Comcast's side here.
I had looked to rent at the Riverwalk at Millennium the week before the fire, so I was really shocked when it happened. I don't believe Comcast is in the wrong for wanting compensation for the lost cable boxes. On the other hand, I don't think that they would have acted the same if this was a single resident fire. The fact that Comcast is the only provider for the complex, and so many were customers were affected; they have more of a reason to seek compensation.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: I love "blame the victim". These people are victims of a fire. Comcast is a victim of people not fulfilling reasonable contractual obligations. Which victim are we supposed to not blame?
@Farquar: I am not saying that Comcast not be reimbursed, just not by the people who didn't cause the fire and it needs to be a fair price for a USED piece of equipment. We know it won't be, so Comcast can eat it.
I see nothing wrong here. You, Comcast subscriber, entered an agreement and contract for cable services and box. Read the print and it states YOU are responsible for the box. Fire, water, wind, acts of ... you are responsible.
If you don't have renter's insurance, you asked for it.
@Erwos: I am a victim of baldness. I too blame Comcast.
Interestingly, my cable service comes from RCN, but I blame Comcast, dammit. Evil monkey-balls sucking Comcast. Oh yeah, and the OP.
Why is this on the Consumerist? If anything this post should have been about the merits of renters insurance. Sure it's in the insurance category, but not much about it is mentioned.
The anti-Comcast thing is getting a bit out of hand. I'm a bit disappointed with the tone and wording of the headline versus the article. A little more balance may be in order- don't worry, Comcast will shoot themselves in the foot soon enough, and then you can let the snark back out (deservedly).
@SpdRacer: You are right: It's not the FAULT of the people that live there. However, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person leasing the equipment to return it or pay for it.
It's possible to avoid the box. We've got bottom-of-the-line cable -- just enough to get our local stations -- and our line goes straight into the set.
Generally when suing for something, you're only eligible to recover the depreciated value, not the brand new value.
How does that work in an instance like this?
How ironic is it going to be when it's discovered that a malfunctioning Comcast cable box was the cause of the fire?
@cosby: It really isn't the same thing, because when you send all that money to the dealership, at the end (ie. car payed off) you get to.... wait for it, KEEP the car.
With the cable boxes you pay forever and never own anything.
The party responsible for starting the fire should have to pay, ultimately. The whole system is set up so that the liable party has to make the injured parties whole. Comcast isn't being evil, but it is insult to injury to make the uninsured pay (though not technically wrong). Renters w/o insurance are already paying the "stupid tax" by losing all their belongings.
The way my insurance works (and the way I suspect most works) is this: my apartment burns down. My insurance replaces my property and puts me up until I find a place to live.
If the investigation shows that the fire was caused by action/negligence on my landlord's part and my insurance company sues him and recovers their money.
Investigation shows I'm at fault and it was an accident, my rates go up or I cannot be insured. If I commit arson, my insurance company sues me to recover their money.
If it's some third party, they get sued (unless they're an enemy combatant or God, then I'm SOL). My insurance is there to cover me when I'm liable or the offending party is unknown or uninsured.
Yeah, Comcast should get their boxes repaid, but renters who aren't at fault for the fire should add it to the list of things they'll sue the liable party for.
Sorry you lost all of your possessions in a fire. Pay up for your damn cable box, because we are a multimillion dollar corporation. Pleas from a slacker with cooked stuff mean nothing to us.
Oh, and if you don't pay for that cable box, we will send this issue to collections. Think you are in tough shit now? Just wait!
Insurance experts, please:
My company leases equipment to manufacturers. Can I obtain insurance such that I would be covered if they have a fire?
If so, do other comapnies do this, and in particular rent-to-own stores whose customers may be wiped out by a fire and uninsured?
Does the cable company's monthly insurance fee cover a loss like this?
It would be great to be able to _routinely_ waive these sort of losses and give your customers one less thing to worry about, as Comcast did for allstarecho's friend but not for these fire victims.
@Xerloq: And after R-ing TFA, I think the residents should bring a civil suit against the company that did the repair with the acetylene torch. The fire inspector said that because the fire was accidental there was no additional action to be taken by law enforcement, meaning no criminal charges could be brought. But accidents are what insurance is for, and the company that did the repairs (or their insurance) should pay, IMHO.
@Xerloq: Comcast can get the money from the uninsured/insurance companies. Then the uninsured/insurance company can sue the company responsible for the fire.
Once you get over all the other reasons to hate Comcast, I think this is OK. It's a rented piece of property and it is covered by homeowners/renters insurance.