 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't Cablevision, it was Tony Soprano.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, so this is your self-serving logic in the proverbial nutshell: if those legions of Cablevision customers who don't want YES have their basic cable rates raised to subsidize those who do, it's not "gouging," but to charge those who do want YES all of $1.95/month is "gouging."
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is one of Cablevision not leveling with their customers and customers discovering a maze of loopholes to find out that they don't have to pay $10 for YES, which is something that Cablevision is obligated to make perfectly clear to their customers. The article deals with Cablevision customers finding that they're not getting straight answers about that and that some of their operators are trying to deceive their customers into making them pay more.
But since you weren't willing to read the article in question, here it is, and let's see if you're still willing to be an apologist for crooked business practices. 
April 4, 2003 -- CABLEVISION customers are complaining about hard-sell tactics that make subscribers believe they have to pay an extra $9.95 a month for a digital upgrade in order to see Yankee games.
In fact, most of Cablevision's subscribers need pay only $1.95 a month extra to get YES, the new Yankee network. For $4.95 a month they can get YES and two other regional sports networks.
But some operators are apparently pressuring customers to take the more expensive upgrade - suggesting they can't get YES without it.
"They told me that in order to add YES, I had to pay an extra $9.95 a month for their digital service or I couldn't get it," said Brooklyn's Mel Levy, a Yankee fan who has been unable to watch the team's games on TV since the YES/Cablevision dispute began.
Levy said he complained about the runaround he was getting from Cablevision customer service representatives this week to State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's office and officials at the City Council and Assembly.
Other Cablevision subscribers complained yesterday of receiving similar treatment.
One said that the Cablevision customer service representative tried to sell him the company's premium digital service, called iO Gold, when all he wanted was to add YES.
When he said "no thanks," the customer was told that Cablevision could not offer him YES on his analog cable box because the FCC had ruled that all cable systems must be converted to digital systems in the next few years. This is not true.
When The Post called a Cablevision customer service rep yesterday to request that YES be added to a reporter's home system, no problems were encountered and the digital service package was not mentioned.
A Cablevision spokesman said subscribers should not be told that they cannot get the channel if they do not have a digital cable box.
Customers with digital or analog boxes can receive the YES Network and all that's required is a cable box, he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The greed is very clearly on the part of YES (do you somehow fail to see it as a corporate entity?); the dispute between it and Cablevision has been so widely publicized and minutely examined that there most certainly is no "maze of loopholes" for customers to negotiate. The fee is, in fact, quite simple and straightforward (of course, Yankee fans are, rather, shall we say...mentally-challenged, so any pertinent financial data may be beyond their limited capacity to decipher).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translation: You approve of deceitful practices by a business lying to their customers and saying they need to buy a premium package for an extra $10 when the deal says they only need to pay $2.
Thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the hell are you talking about?
$1.95 per sports channel; $4.95 for all three. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's evident you're purposefully not reading the article, since the point I keep making deals with dishonest Cablevision reps responding to customer calls asking for YES by telling them they had to buy a full premium package for an extra $10 rather than the $1.95 that is all they had to pay. That is what the posted article says in black and white, and no amount of ignoring it just because you hate the Yankees so much you want to defend dishonest practices can make that go away. 
Here is the relevant passage again, and if you don't respond to it, then I rest my case:
"But some operators are apparently pressuring customers to take the more expensive upgrade - suggesting they can't get YES without it.
"They told me that in order to add YES, I had to pay an extra $9.95 a month for their digital service or I couldn't get it," said Brooklyn's Mel Levy, a Yankee fan who has been unable to watch the team's games on TV since the YES/Cablevision dispute began"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric, you really should stop labelling people, such as calling everyone an "apologist" for this, that or the other.
It weakens everything you try to say thereafter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the YES-Cablevision controversy gets used as the occasion to bash the Yankees in general by not acknowledging the shady practices of Cablevision and their culpability in the saga, that is being an apologist for crooked business practices simply because the fans of a particular team not to the apologist's liking are getting impacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Weakens?" To use that verb, one must presume that the noun in question is not already so weak and untrue as to already be irrelevant.
As for this article you keep quoting as though it were the Sixth Book of Moses, exactly what publication are you talking about? (In any case, that the Cablevision customer-service representatives were reading and quoting guidelines not approved by top management is not only possible, but likely. It's something I -- and most people -- have encountered during our dealings with large companies, where eager and overly ambitious middle-management types have fudged words and figures to pad their productivity reports.)
PS: "Impact" is not a verb. You mean "affected."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To original: The article was linked and reproduced in full. You're demonstrating the same kind of stubborn refusal to accept factual evidence that doesn't support your arguments that you also display in matters not to be discussed on this board, so you disseminate.
Anzaldiman: Your description sounds exactly like what's happening to the other people getting gouged because the terms of the agreement is that you do not have to pay an extra $10 to get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the agreement with YES has determined, Cablevision will offer the service to those with premium-level packages at no extra cost, and to others for $1.95 for the single extra channel, or $4.95 for all three sports channels.
If Cablevision's equipment is not set up to offer all the options in all locations, then they should, and would, say so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 6, 2003 - 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ANZALDIMAN
(Member)
|
Cablevision has had the monopoly in my town for years (since 81') People NEED to make a stink and show up at city hall and give them some competition. People just lying back and paying the bill for a lousy Cablevision signal even in 2003 should be concerned..Cablevision used to broadcast a program on public access stations to take calls publically on disputes on billing, and overall programming quality. Alas, no more..Towns and cities(THE PUBLIC) need to be aware when these cable companies contracts are up in their locales in order to place pressure where it belongs. I have not been pleased with Cablevision's quality for years, and have said so..I am however, a lone wolf in my town it seems to fight them. The picture and sound quality STINK .Weather, and "upgrading" is no excuse anymore.. A JOKE..This is 2003..They know they have the monopoly during the course of a contract, and they treat customers "accordingly"..Translated , "SHITTY"..Just pay the bill regardless of lousy service, or you risk being shut off..With no other alternative other than a dish on the roof. No compromise, just CONTROVERSY..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, folks, the man reads The Post. Not Alexander Hamilton's Post, or Dorothy Schiff's Post, but Rupert Murdoch's (though Peter Kalikow's short tenure as owner was no improvement).
It says a great deal about you, Eric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
