>From Kai:<br>((unlurking one more time))<br><br>I was wondering something... <br><br>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.
<br><br>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?
<br><br>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? <br><br>- Kai<br>
<br>Just wondering out-loud about how internet providers charge for their services.. <br><br>would it be worth it to suggest changing the way these utilities are allowed to bill/charge for their services? <br><br>((returning to lurker mode))
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:39:29 -0800<br>From: Don Marti <
<a href="mailto:dmarti@zgp.org">dmarti@zgp.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [conspire] Communications, a lack thereof<br>To: <a href="mailto:conspire@linuxmafia.com">conspire@linuxmafia.com</a><br><br><br>begin Rick Moen quotation of Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 11:05:34AM -0800:
<br>> Quoting Ross Bernheim (<a href="mailto:rossbernheim@speakeasy.net">rossbernheim@speakeasy.net</a>):<br>><br>> > As to writing the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission, it would do<br>> > no good to tell them what they already know and have ample
<br>> > documentation on and have failed to act to protect the consumer on<br>> > for years.<br>><br>> Actually, it's useful. If anyone wants to take action against AT&T<br>> (or whatever they're called, this week) via PUC action _or_ in a
<br>> third-party lawsuit that references PUC records, a pattern of official<br>> complaints is fuel for the fire.<br><br>I agree with Rick here -- the PUC ultimately has to<br>justify itself to the Legislature, and writing to
<br>your state legislators is another possible next step<br>other than a lawsuit.<br><br>Just to give you an idea, here's a law that just went<br>into effect today: if you're a California citizen,<br>and you have a store gift card worth less than $10,
<br>the store has to give you cash for the card if you<br>ask for it. If something like that can pass, then<br>it's easy to imagine the "if they take down your<br>DSL they have to pay you $10 per IP address per day"
<br>bill passing too.<br><br>--<br>Don Marti<br><a href="http://zgp.org/%7Edmarti/" target="_blank">http://zgp.org/~dmarti/</a><br><a href="mailto:dmarti@zgp.org">dmarti@zgp.org</a><br><br><br><br>------------------------------
<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:06:08 -0800<br>From: Daniel Gimpelevich <<a href="mailto:daniel@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us">daniel@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us</a>><br>Subject: Re: [conspire] Communications, a lack thereof
<br>To: <a href="mailto:conspire@linuxmafia.com">conspire@linuxmafia.com</a><br>Message-ID:<br> <<a href="mailto:pan.2008.01.02.06.06.08.353584@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us">pan.2008.01.02.06.06.08.353584@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8<br><br>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:39:29 -0800, Don Marti wrote:<br><br>> Just to give you an idea, here's a law that just went<br>> into effect today: if you're a California citizen,
<br>> and you have a store gift card worth less than $10,<br>> the store has to give you cash for the card if you<br>> ask for it. If something like that can pass, then<br>> it's easy to imagine the "if they take down your
<br>> DSL they have to pay you $10 per IP address per day"<br>> bill passing too.<br><br>I have a store gift card worth exactly $10. Not only can I not get cash<br>for it, I can't get ANYTHING for it. Ideas?
<br><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>conspire mailing list<br><a href="mailto:conspire@linuxmafia.com">conspire@linuxmafia.com</a><br><a href="http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire" target="_blank">
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire</a><br><br><br>End of conspire Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2<br>***************************************<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Ms.Kai Sandoval<br><br>
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/677/a41">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/677/a41</a> <br><a href="http://people.tribe.net/da12c6fd-0b2e-4ba6-ac41-b760bdbe9675">http://people.tribe.net/da12c6fd-0b2e-4ba6-ac41-b760bdbe9675
</a><br>