Over at DSL Reports there is a discussion going on over this news article.
To summarize the article, in a recent tornado in Lincoln Nebraska, a bunch of houses were destoryed. When one resident contacted Dish about the equipment, they were told that it was their responsibility to pay for the equipment (even if insurance didn't cover it) since it was leased equipment. The local cable company is supposibly eating the costs for their rented equipment.
Who do you think is "right"? Should Dish eat the costs...or should the "blame" be given to the victim for not having the right insurance coverage?
To summarize the article, in a recent tornado in Lincoln Nebraska, a bunch of houses were destoryed. When one resident contacted Dish about the equipment, they were told that it was their responsibility to pay for the equipment (even if insurance didn't cover it) since it was leased equipment. The local cable company is supposibly eating the costs for their rented equipment.
Who do you think is "right"? Should Dish eat the costs...or should the "blame" be given to the victim for not having the right insurance coverage?