TiVo : Dead tivo! Error code C130

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I will never fail to be astonished at what people who pay for a service are prepared to put up with. .

And I will never fail to be astonished by people who don't understand that, through no fault of the supplier, equipment sometimes fails.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

And I will never fail to be astonished by people who don't understand that, through no fault of the supplier, equipment sometimes fails.

Everyone understands that it fails. Doesn't mean you should be paying for the time when it's not working - it might not be the fault of the supplier, but it definitely isn't the fault of the customer.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Everyone understands that it fails. Doesn't mean you should be paying for the time when it's not working - it might not be the fault of the supplier, but it definitely isn't the fault of the customer.

Are you suggesting that VM should compensate every customer who has to have a faulty box swapped out, for loss of recordings and the days when they can't record new programmes?

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Are you suggesting that VM should compensate every customer who has to have a faulty box swapped out, for loss of recordings and the days when they can't record new programmes?

Yes, although I think we're getting hung up on this word "compensate", and it's misleading.

I am suggesting that people shouldn't be have to pay full monthly subscriptions for services that they haven't received for a full month.

If I employed a gardener to tend to my garden every day, and one day he couldn't come because his lawn mower wasn't working then I wouldn't be paying him for that day, regardless of whether or not I accept that sometimes equipment goes wrong. If I'd paid him in advance then I'd be expecting a refund.

Why should Virgin be any different? Thankfully, the evidence is that they don't believe they are.

[OLD BOY]

It is only right that VM compensate customers for the time that they were unable to use their STB. That I think we should all agree.

However, giving a free upgrade is much more than this and VM didn't have to do it. The fact that they did shows that this is a company worth doing business with to provide your services: they are customer friendly.

To those who say VM have only done what should have been expected, I'd like someone to try out that theory on Sky!

[pengedragon]

Are all 1tbs Samsung? The 500gb was a Cisco

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by pengedragon

Are all 1tbs Samsung? The 500gb was a Cisco

Both manufacturers make both sizes.

[pengedragon]

Thanks

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Virgin don't contract you to give them money each month, you employ them to provide you with a service, and if they do so sufficiently well then you pay them for it.

It's a mutual contract really. The customer agrees to pay X amount per month in return for X service/s.

If you don't fulfill your side of the contract by paying the money for the service/s, VM will take action against you. If VM don't provide the services as agreed, it's open for the customer to take action. The whole point of a contract is to set out what is expected from each party and outline the consequences of non fulfillment. In this particular case, the customer obviously has the upper hand.

Unless it's in the contract, it's irrelevant as to the cause of non fulfillment. It's no use VM saying "well things go wrong sometimes", just as VM doesn't have to be interested in the reasons for a customer not paying their bill on time. In practice, as the customer has the upper hand, VM are likely to come to some arrangement to keep your custom and reduce churn.

Originally Posted by passingbat

Are you suggesting that VM should compensate every customer who has to have a faulty box swapped out, for loss of recordings and the days when they can't record new programmes?

Only those that ask. It's sound business sense to keep customers happy, a small outlay is worth it to keep people paying X amount per month to VM as opposed to a competitor.

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by MutleyF

Totally disagree.
The service was broken - and repaired. it would be like me trying to get compensation from Western Digital because the hard drive on my PC broke losing all my stuff.

Agree we pay top dollar for the service, but short of replacing the equipment, I really cant see what more they can do.

(Or is it that maybe I am too gentle with my approach to life?)

No Mutley you are right there is no issue of compensation hereimo.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Doug P

No Mutley you are right there is no issue of compensation hereimo.

Try convincing the 'Compensation Culture' brigade on that one!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's a mutual contract really. The customer agrees to pay X amount per month in return for X service/s.

If you don't fulfill your side of the contract by paying the money for the service/s, VM will take action against you. If VM don't provide the services as agreed, it's open for the customer to take action. The whole point of a contract is to set out what is expected from each party and outline the consequences of non fulfillment. In this particular case, the customer obviously has the upper hand.

Unless it's in the contract, it's irrelevant as to the cause of non fulfillment. It's no use VM saying "well things go wrong sometimes", just as VM doesn't have to be interested in the reasons for a customer not paying their bill on time. In practice, as the customer has the upper hand, VM are likely to come to some arrangement to keep your custom and reduce churn.

The compensation paid to take account of the days when you didn't get the service is all VM are obliged to pay.

Upgrading your equipment for you certainly shouldn't be an expectation!

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The compensation paid to take account of the days when you didn't get the service is all VM are obliged to pay.

Upgrading your equipment for you certainly shouldn't be an expectation!

Read the op. It wasn't.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Read the op. It wasn't.

I know that, Andy. I was replying to Richard, who seems to think that it is.