Does Ubc/True Understand People'S Plight?

[t36ony]

So, at the start of August the water was coming to my Ayutthaya home. All the people in the Moo Barn were running around filling sandbags, myself included. We tried our best then the village had a meeting and decided the water was too much and it was every man for themsleves. I waited (still not believing it would get that high) til it got started creaping into the house. I then decided it was time to evacuate. This was a stressful time, not ony trying to save my house, the Moo Barn but also and more importantly my wife and children. I then spent the next three and a half weeks staying at relatives houses and hotels. My childrens school stayed open so all i could do was stay in a hotel near their school. I came back to my house at the end of October only to see the bottom metre of my house caked with dirty slime and mud.

Sorry for being long winded, but my point is UBC/True do not seem to understand that this happened to me and said that i must pay my 1,600 baht for my UBC for October. My wife told them that we were flooded and basically we esacped from our house and our lives were in turmoil. Their answer was that we should have cancelled. I must admit on the list of most important things to do when a tidal wave of water is coming to your home, it is not cancelling the satellite connection. Or did those UBC bosses really think that i sat their in 1 metre of dirty water with no water or sanitation for one month happily watching discovery channel? It is just annoying because i am painting my house now and this 1,600 baht would have gone a long way to helping me with the cost of restoration. I hope someone from UBC reads this!!

[FWIW]

My problem was slightly different. I am flooded in ( a meter of water in the street) but still have all services, all the banks nearby are closed, and not likely to open for a while. I am past my due date on several bills. UBC also told me I should cancel, but finally understood that in my case I did not want to terminate the service, even temporarily, and they finally agreed to extend the bill payment date to the end of this month.

The internet company (true?) point blank refused to extend and told me to pay or get cut. Luckily I was able to make a credit card payment on line (not my payment method of choice).

Telephone AIS also agreed to extend the payment date till the end of the month, and said to call again if I still was not able to make payment and they would extend further if required.

All three companies were easy to conect to on the phone, and all had English speaking staff. Telephone and UBC excellent, the Internet service guy less so as he could not understand what I was asking for when I requested him to give me my "account number" (everything was moved upstairs and I could not find a last bill).

Overall, the companies have been pretty good.

[dereklev]

UBC is now TrueVisions and has been for quite a while. They are part of the same company who supply your internet.

Seems strange that one arm of the business will extend your payment period and another refuse to do so.

A definite case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Hope the flood waters recde soon.

[Heng]

I suppose those 100,000+ folks who had their cars ruined by the flood shouldn't have to continue to make car payments? A contract is a contract.

[thaibeachlovers]

Sorry, but what does the contract say? If it doesn't allow for such events then you have no grounds to demand any special treatment.

I know that most of us don't bother reading the small print, but if we don't, it's down to us.

Corporations aren't people, they don't have morals or sympathy, and they live by the small print.

Caveat emptor.

For the person asking about whether car owners should have to pay even though their cars are ruined- yes. That's what insurance is for.

[Moonrakers]

UBC is a luxury utility.

If you're complaining about being short of cash now, did you ever stop to think about all the people that couldn't afford it even before the flood.

The woman on the phone was right, you should have called to cancel. But you didn't so you now have to pay.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Moonrakers

[robblok]

Of course people should pay its a contract. However people like me have a problem paying (before) because you cant leave your home. They should be a bit lenient for that. Anyway now that the 711 is open again we can pay our bills.

[robblok]

Sorry, but what does the contract say? If it doesn't allow for such events then you have no grounds to demand any special treatment.

I know that most of us don't bother reading the small print, but if we don't, it's down to us.

Corporations aren't people, they don't have morals or sympathy, and they live by the small print.

Caveat emptor.

For the person asking about whether car owners should have to pay even though their cars are ruined- yes. That's what insurance is for.

I am pretty sure that flood damage is excluded. So they have no car and have to pay. Not fair but a deal is a deal.

[Fookhaht]

If you live hand-to-mouth, and one paycheck from bankruptcy, perhaps it's not good to sign any contract involving a monthly payment. An emergency fund at least equal to three months of all your payments ought to be in the bank before ever entering into such a contract. Of course, the emergency fund ought to extend beyond that to cover alternate accommodations, food and home/car repairs, as well as medical emergencies which your medical insurance won't cover.

If you don't have the forethought to prepare at such a minimum level for unexpected contingencies, you flirt with serious inconvenience and physical deprivation for you and your family. If prepared adequately, TrueVisions' 1,600B bill will be just a drop from your bucket, with plenty left over to handle other more serious matters (like house repairs).

My suggestion would be to learn from this disaster, and begin building a serious emergency fund once you're back on top of things.

Respectfully,

Fookhaht

[prefabs]

To answer your original question, "Do they understand?"

Yes, they understand. But they just don't care. They don't care about people who are paying their bills, cutting off certain channels when they feel like it etc.

Sorry, you will have to pay or be cut off

[Soutpeel]

I suppose those 100,000+ folks who had their cars ruined by the flood shouldn't have to continue to make car payments? A contract is a contract.

[harrry]

I suppose those 100,000+ folks who had their cars ruined by the flood shouldn't have to continue to make car payments? A contract is a contract.

Now just what is it they say in China that a contract is just the starting point of a realtionship.

[wayned]

If your TOT bill is past due you can't pay it at 7-11 or on the internet. If it's past due neither will accept it and you have to take a water taxi to the TOT office and pay it in person.

Of course people should pay its a contract. However people like me have a problem paying (before) because you cant leave your home. They should be a bit lenient for that. Anyway now that the 711 is open again we can pay our bills.

[Fookhaht]

I suppose those 100,000+ folks who had their cars ruined by the flood shouldn't have to continue to make car payments? A contract is a contract.

Now just what is it they say in China that a contract is just the starting point of a realtionship.

Contracts? China? I thought the two terms were mutually exclusive?!

[gregb]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society. Kicking someone when he is down seems like a national past time for most here. The truth is True knows you didn't use the service. They could easily retroactively cancel the service for the month without worrying about any moral hazard. In the end it would have made no difference to them when you called. That you waited until now is a mere technicality in the larger sense. Under a different circumstance where it wasn't so glaringly obvious that might not be the case, but all they have to do is look at your address to know what happened now.

But they would rather milk flood victims for their last remaining baht and wave contracts in your face. You can try and write a letter to the editor of the papers here in Thailand exposing these cretins for what they are, but the editors will not publish it. You my friend, are SOL.

Welcome to modern capitalism, a system designed to be amoral. Expecting any large company to exercise any degree of compassion is not realistic, and also implies that while cheating and stealing from a large, faceless corporation is legally incorrect, there is no moral dimension to it. I would like to see a society built on values better than this, but that is not the world we live in.

All you can do is be content knowing that some are suffering more than you in addition to those suffering less. And hope that in the end the stockholders of True get what is coming to them for supporting this behavior and not being outraged at the board for acting this way, threatening a massive dump of the stock to show their displeasure. I don't hold stock in any company that doesn't have a policy of social responsibility because I don't want to have to have this guilt hanging over me on my death bed.

The older I get and the more I deal in the capitalist system, the more apparent it becomes to me what a horrible system this truly is.

[Fookhaht]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society. Kicking someone when he is down seems like a national past time for most here. The truth is True knows you didn't use the service. They could easily retroactively cancel the service for the month without worrying about any moral hazard. In the end it would have made no difference to them when you called. That you waited until now is a mere technicality in the larger sense. Under a different circumstance where it wasn't so glaringly obvious that might not be the case, but all they have to do is look at your address to know what happened now.

But they would rather milk flood victims for their last remaining baht and wave contracts in your face. You can try and write a letter to the editor of the papers here in Thailand exposing these cretins for what they are, but the editors will not publish it. You my friend, are SOL.

Welcome to modern capitalism, a system designed to be amoral. Expecting any large company to exercise any degree of compassion is not realistic, and also implies that while cheating and stealing from a large, faceless corporation is legally incorrect, there is no moral dimension to it. I would like to see a society built on values better than this, but that is not the world we live in.

All you can do is be content knowing that some are suffering more than you in addition to those suffering less. And hope that in the end the stockholders of True get what is coming to them for supporting this behavior and not being outraged at the board for acting this way, threatening a massive dump of the stock to show their displeasure. I don't hold stock in any company that doesn't have a policy of social responsibility because I don't want to have to have this guilt hanging over me on my death bed.

The older I get and the more I deal in the capitalist system, the more apparent it becomes to me what a horrible system this truly is.

Capitalism a la Michael Moore

Because human beings are flawed, any system of which they are a part is equally flawed. Until you can come up with something better, I'ts the best system we've got. At least it recognizes and channels human greed. Something other systems (Communism, Socialism, etc.) never did.

[robblok]

If your TOT bill is past due you can't pay it at 7-11 or on the internet. If it's past due neither will accept it and you have to take a water taxi to the TOT office and pay it in person.

Of course people should pay its a contract. However people like me have a problem paying (before) because you cant leave your home. They should be a bit lenient for that. Anyway now that the 711 is open again we can pay our bills.

With luck we had all our bills payed so the problem never arose. But we did go out once with trucks just to find a dry spot to pay our bills. Not a fun trip. However paying it somewhere else if your real late is normal because the system is not made for it. WHat i mean is cutting off service because of it.

I must say we dont have to pay electricity for 3 months because they cant read the meters and of course once they can they have a lot of work to do. (yes in the end we do pay it all)

[Heng]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society.

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

[harrry]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society.

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

Maybe they were too busy running to their own banks.

[gregb]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society. Kicking someone when he is down seems like a national past time for most here. The truth is True knows you didn't use the service. They could easily retroactively cancel the service for the month without worrying about any moral hazard. In the end it would have made no difference to them when you called. That you waited until now is a mere technicality in the larger sense. Under a different circumstance where it wasn't so glaringly obvious that might not be the case, but all they have to do is look at your address to know what happened now.

But they would rather milk flood victims for their last remaining baht and wave contracts in your face. You can try and write a letter to the editor of the papers here in Thailand exposing these cretins for what they are, but the editors will not publish it. You my friend, are SOL.

Welcome to modern capitalism, a system designed to be amoral. Expecting any large company to exercise any degree of compassion is not realistic, and also implies that while cheating and stealing from a large, faceless corporation is legally incorrect, there is no moral dimension to it. I would like to see a society built on values better than this, but that is not the world we live in.

All you can do is be content knowing that some are suffering more than you in addition to those suffering less. And hope that in the end the stockholders of True get what is coming to them for supporting this behavior and not being outraged at the board for acting this way, threatening a massive dump of the stock to show their displeasure. I don't hold stock in any company that doesn't have a policy of social responsibility because I don't want to have to have this guilt hanging over me on my death bed.

The older I get and the more I deal in the capitalist system, the more apparent it becomes to me what a horrible system this truly is.

Capitalism a la Michael Moore

Because human beings are flawed, any system of which they are a part is equally flawed. Until you can come up with something better, I'ts the best system we've got. At least it recognizes and channels human greed. Something other systems (Communism, Socialism, etc.) never did.

Distributism is significantly better and does not suffer the problems of either capitalism and or socialism. But a distributist state would not allow True or AIS or any of the mega corporations that exploit the Thai people to exist, so getting a morally decent economic system here in Thailand will not happen in our lifetimes.

[gregb]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society.

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

You conveniently left out the point where I explained that no moral hazard could come from granting flood victims relief in this case, as there was no speculation and it is obvious to everyone that the service was going unused. Heck, the company could have simply cancelled it for the guy knowing it was going to be unused. It is a mere technicality that he didn't call to cancel it at the right time. Quite different than what you are trying to imply.

Your extension to governments does not have the same constraints.

[Mosha]

A lot of the provincial True Vision outlets are franchises. The can't think outside the box. This was our experience with them in Ranong. I am usually the one who goes to pay the bill, but on this occasion it was my wife. She went into the office, and the assistants are sat twiddling their thumbs. They told my wife the computer was down and she could not pay. She told them the bill was due the next day, but we would be leaving for Nakhon (Sri Thammerat) early next morning for 5 days, so don't cut us off. No problem they replied we will take care of it.

Of couRse when we returned we were without a signal. We did get it sorted, and thanks to a guy who may read this topic and his job is to look after the expat customers, we got our reconnection fee back. When they give me the pc BS, I tell them I have made a 60km round trip to pay this bill, so take my money, give me a receipt, and ca;; head office with my account details. They don't like doing that, but I make a fuss until they do as I ask, or the shop manager comes out to see what's going on. It aLways ends in me getting my way.

[Heng]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society.

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

You conveniently left out the point where I explained that no moral hazard could come from granting flood victims relief in this case, as there was no speculation and it is obvious to everyone that the service was going unused. Heck, the company could have simply cancelled it for the guy knowing it was going to be unused. It is a mere technicality that he didn't call to cancel it at the right time. Quite different than what you are trying to imply.

Your extension to governments does not have the same constraints.

A free lunch is a free lunch (in that in the end, it does actually cost someone). Myself, I think it would be worth much more in PR points to give folks a free ride in this case, but I do understand the company's point of view as well. Who gets a free month (or months) of cable, and who doesn't? Do we give the entire country a free ride? For how long? There are definitely folks still not watching television. Do we need to set up an entire team of folks to sort through who is using our service and who isn't? Do we need to quantify what is considered 'use?' Our shareholders aren't all fat cats kicking back and having a laugh over all of this. Plenty of institutional shareholders means 'little' decisions like this aren't as insignificant or 'us' vs. 'them' as one may think. Before we let this snowball into something completely unnecessary, how about sticking to the norm of 'when bills are due, they are due?'

It's a subsidy for someone's lack of responsibility. Whether it's a tsumani, flood, or sleeping through your alarm. I sympathize, but that's the reality of it.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Heng

[gregb]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society.

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

You conveniently left out the point where I explained that no moral hazard could come from granting flood victims relief in this case, as there was no speculation and it is obvious to everyone that the service was going unused. Heck, the company could have simply cancelled it for the guy knowing it was going to be unused. It is a mere technicality that he didn't call to cancel it at the right time. Quite different than what you are trying to imply.

Your extension to governments does not have the same constraints.

A free lunch is a free lunch (in that in the end, it does actually cost someone). Myself, I think it would be worth much more in PR points to give folks a free ride in this case, but I do understand the company's point of view as well. Who gets a free month (or months) of cable, and who doesn't? Do we give the entire country a free ride? For how long? There are definitely folks still not watching television. Do we need to set up an entire team of folks to sort through who is using our service and who isn't? Do we need to quantify what is considered 'use?' Our shareholders aren't all fat cats kicking back and having a laugh over all of this. Plenty of institutional shareholders means 'little' decisions like this aren't as insignificant or 'us' vs. 'them' as one may think. Before we let this snowball into someone completely unnecessary, how about sticking to the norm of 'when bills are due, they are due?'

It's a subsidy for someone's lack of responsibility. Whether it's a tsumani, flood, or sleeping through your alarm. I sympathize, but that's the reality of it.

I disagree. The company has address records and knows exactly who was flooded out and who wasn't. Quite easy to determine who gets relief and who doesn't. So again, there is no moral hazard.

I agree that True won't act in this case because it hurts their bottom line. But I do believe they should be called to task for this, as it shows a complete lack of social responsibility. And hiding your support for these socially irresponsible companies behind pension plans does not relieve an investor of the moral dilemma of making money at the expense of victims. Whether you are a wealthy or a poor investor, people need to consider how they are enriching themselves and at whose expense.

Sadly, most people just don't care. Greed is not good.

[FWIW]

^ Sorry to disagree with you, but a flooded region does NOT mean all houses are automatically empty, and that the service is not being used. I am in a heavily flooded area (western bk), and quite happily watch my UBC every night, listening to the gentle lap of water against my doorstep. Unless they CAN tell who is watching and who is not, they have no real option but to charge all for the service unless you cancel it.

I do not agree with OPs position. He has the service provided, using it or not is his issue, not UBCs issue. If the service was down due to flood - different story.

[WarpSpeed]

I suppose those 100,000+ folks who had their cars ruined by the flood shouldn't have to continue to make car payments? A contract is a contract.

Yes they should but in extreme conditions such as this when you can't even get your mail for example a professional company would offer a grace period and/or bill adjustment so don't be an obtuse ass..

I'm glad to see someone started this thread, it needs to be publicized that True is clueless and showing their 'true' monopoly colors. Every business we deal with some like DTAC were not even asked but offered or took action automatically and has been accommodating including True Internet but not True visions and while they may be under the same name and parent company they are separate companies and operate as such like so many do..

[WarpSpeed]

Sorry, but what does the contract say? If it doesn't allow for such events then you have no grounds to demand any special treatment.

I know that most of us don't bother reading the small print, but if we don't, it's down to us.

Corporations aren't people, they don't have morals or sympathy, and they live by the small print.

Caveat emptor.

For the person asking about whether car owners should have to pay even though their cars are ruined- yes. That's what insurance is for.

Corporations aren't people? :cheesy: If you can't get that part right the rest of the post is just as clueless..

[WarpSpeed]

The simple answer is that True does understand what people are going through, but they simply don't care. They are a bunch of greedy corporate bastards with no soul. That is capitalism, and people on this site in particular seem to think that this is a great way to build a society.

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

Obviously someone sitting in his dry home, with no soul or moral conscience what-so-ever, posting from his air conned study with a cold LEO in hand..

"A little wet" what a trolling imbecile...

Edited November 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

If we're going to give out free passes to folks who got a little wet, wow about a worldwide freeze on interest payments on national debt obligations? ...Because the gov't was too busy to run down to the bank.

You conveniently left out the point where I explained that no moral hazard could come from granting flood victims relief in this case, as there was no speculation and it is obvious to everyone that the service was going unused. Heck, the company could have simply cancelled it for the guy knowing it was going to be unused. It is a mere technicality that he didn't call to cancel it at the right time. Quite different than what you are trying to imply.

Your extension to governments does not have the same constraints.

A free lunch is a free lunch (in that in the end, it does actually cost someone). Myself, I think it would be worth much more in PR points to give folks a free ride in this case, but I do understand the company's point of view as well. Who gets a free month (or months) of cable, and who doesn't? Do we give the entire country a free ride? For how long? There are definitely folks still not watching television. Do we need to set up an entire team of folks to sort through who is using our service and who isn't? Do we need to quantify what is considered 'use?' Our shareholders aren't all fat cats kicking back and having a laugh over all of this. Plenty of institutional shareholders means 'little' decisions like this aren't as insignificant or 'us' vs. 'them' as one may think. Before we let this snowball into someone completely unnecessary, how about sticking to the norm of 'when bills are due, they are due?'

It's a subsidy for someone's lack of responsibility. Whether it's a tsumani, flood, or sleeping through your alarm. I sympathize, but that's the reality of it.

I disagree. The company has address records and knows exactly who was flooded out and who wasn't. Quite easy to determine who gets relief and who doesn't. So again, there is no moral hazard.

I agree that True won't act in this case because it hurts their bottom line. But I do believe they should be called to task for this, as it shows a complete lack of social responsibility. And hiding your support for these socially irresponsible companies behind pension plans does not relieve an investor of the moral dilemma of making money at the expense of victims. Whether you are a wealthy or a poor investor, people need to consider how they are enriching themselves and at whose expense.

Sadly, most people just don't care. Greed is not good.

Absolutely... They're an unregulated monopoly simple as that..

[WarpSpeed]

^ Sorry to disagree with you, but a flooded region does NOT mean all houses are automatically empty, and that the service is not being used. I am in a heavily flooded area (western bk), and quite happily watch my UBC every night, listening to the gentle lap of water against my doorstep. Unless they CAN tell who is watching and who is not, they have no real option but to charge all for the service unless you cancel it.

I do not agree with OPs position. He has the service provided, using it or not is his issue, not UBCs issue. If the service was down due to flood - different story.

What about not receiving bills due to suspended mail delivery or no way to get to pay? What about being completely displaced in short order with the need to make last minute arrangements for a roof over one's families head? If you're not facing these dilemmas you have no basis for an opinion and that includes everyone posting.. Face it, paying True is not on the priority list and they should know, sympathize, understand and accommodate that..