[conspire] conspire Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2

[K Sandoval]

>From Kai:
((unlurking one more time))

I was wondering something...

IF PG&E is only allowed to charge a consumer for what gas/electricity that
consumer actually "USED" why are other utilities allowed to charge consumers
a flat rate, even when the service is not available?  It seems to me
services like Cable/Dish TV, telephone service, and internet service
providers are given an unfair advantage over consumers. These providers are
allowed to charge for a full months worth of uninterrupted services even
though a full months worth of uninterrupted services have not been
provided.

If your power goes out the electric company is not allowed to charge a
consumer for the power  a consumer "theoretically" would have consumed
during that down time.  The energy that is not provided and not actually
"consumed". And if the power is out for over a certain amount of time (what
is it 72 hours?) and the consumer loses the food in his/her refrigerator,
aren't they allowed to file a claim?

if you are a small business and you can not receive orders, or a
web-designer, and the lack of internet access prevents you from providing
your service/skills, why is this loss treated differently?

- Kai

Just wondering out-loud about how internet providers charge for their
services..

would it be worth it to suggest changing the way these utilities are allowed
to bill/charge for their services?

((returning to lurker mode))

>
>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:39:29 -0800
> From: Don Marti <dmarti at zgp.org>
> Subject: Re: [conspire] Communications, a lack thereof
> To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
>
>
> begin Rick Moen quotation of Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 11:05:34AM -0800:
> > Quoting Ross Bernheim (rossbernheim at speakeasy.net):
> >
> > > As to writing the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission, it would do
> > > no good to tell them what they already know and have ample
> > > documentation on and have failed to act to protect the consumer on
> > > for years.
> >
> > Actually, it's useful.  If anyone wants to take action against AT&T
> > (or whatever they're called, this week) via PUC action _or_ in a
> > third-party lawsuit that references PUC records, a pattern of official
> > complaints is fuel for the fire.
>
> I agree with Rick here -- the PUC ultimately has to
> justify itself to the Legislature, and writing to
> your state legislators is another possible next step
> other than a lawsuit.
>
> Just to give you an idea, here's a law that just went
> into effect today: if you're a California citizen,
> and you have a store gift card worth less than $10,
> the store has to give you cash for the card if you
> ask for it.  If something like that can pass, then
> it's easy to imagine the "if they take down your
> DSL they have to pay you $10 per IP address per day"
> bill passing too.
>
> --
> Don Marti
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/ <http://zgp.org/%7Edmarti/>
> dmarti at zgp.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:06:08 -0800
> From: Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>
> Subject: Re: [conspire] Communications, a lack thereof
> To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
> Message-ID:
>        <pan.2008.01.02.06.06.08.353584 at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:39:29 -0800, Don Marti wrote:
>
> > Just to give you an idea, here's a law that just went
> > into effect today: if you're a California citizen,
> > and you have a store gift card worth less than $10,
> > the store has to give you cash for the card if you
> > ask for it.  If something like that can pass, then
> > it's easy to imagine the "if they take down your
> > DSL they have to pay you $10 per IP address per day"
> > bill passing too.
>
> I have a store gift card worth exactly $10. Not only can I not get cash
> for it, I can't get ANYTHING for it. Ideas?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
>
>
> End of conspire Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2
> ***************************************
>



-- 
Ms.Kai Sandoval

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/677/a41
http://people.tribe.net/da12c6fd-0b2e-4ba6-ac41-b760bdbe9675
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20080108/8b726964/attachment.html>