Jan 14, 2009

Time Warner

Philip again comes down on both sides of an issue:

Well you thought the brain children at Time Warner were stupid. Really stupid. But now they make a move that reflects the stupidity of government - and it is going to cost you $12 a year.

Get this - Time Warner is going "Green." Now that is funny. What they are really doing is getting more of your "Green."

Here is the set up. They want to save the trees by cutting down on paper. So if you choose to pay your bill online - you will see no changes to your bill. However, if you like to have your bill paid by paper (meaning you send them a check) it costs you .99 cents.

Philip frequently argues that he's pro-business. Apparently, that only counts if it doesn't actually cost Philip anything - first he complained about the increase in subscription costs for the Beaumont Enterprise, and now, a service charge on paper bills from Time-Warner. 

Typically, Philip is confused about the issue:

That was until the PUC in Texas got wind of it. Is it legal is the question. After all - all taxes and fees must be approved by the PUC. And that leads the question if the PUC has approved the fee increase?

This isn't a fee increase as Philip ignorantly claims, but rather a service charge. Philip's source at the Texas Public Utilities Commission apparently didn't take the time to explain the difference between the two, since the source was probably trying to get off the phone as quickly as possible without actually hanging up on Klein.

No matter how Time-Warner frames the service charge, it's obviously a move at making their billing department more efficient by reducing costs.  Maybe that's not such a bad idea when faced with reducing the company's payroll in the middle of a recession. I admit, however, that I'm biased. I've been paying via online banking for the past five years or so and wonder how I ever got along without it.  I think it beats having to deal with all that paper.

Note to Philip: Maybe you should consider a lawsuit! Got anything else to whine about?

A real reader left this comment today:

I started several times to comment on Philip's "Time Warner" post. It is wrong in so many ways that I ultimately let it all go as so much dribble. Then I see this comment in his reader mail "Today - we see 129 hits in about an hour during the day."! HAHAHAHA, what more can one say? Further, I wonder if Philip could back his statement by producing a copy of the Review from 1993? My guess is no.  

Probably not, especially since he apparently wrote that same question to which he responded. Look for the Philip's signature grammatical train wrecks:

Thank you for what you do for our area. I am only 18 years old and a Senior Government student at Westbrook. My teacher showed us your web site. My class follows it every week. We all laugh at some of your stories because they are unbelievable. But they we find out they are true after doing our own research into them. I am going to ask to do my paper on your web site. Can you tell me why you do your site. And when it was started?"

Perhaps I'm revealing a secret, but Philip has problems with improper capitalization and compound sentences. Those are always dead giveaways for me.  I'm sure Sam the Eagle will have more on Philip comments concerning those 129 hits per hour that usually occur between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am, oddly enough.

No comments :