"Here's two light bulbs you didn't order. You owe us 21 bucks."

[Thomas Veil]

Here, my friends, is today's WTF Moment (http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=123013&catid=3):

AKRON -- Northeast Ohio lawmakers were quick to question and criticize First Energy's plan to mail two compact fluorescent light bulbs to their residential customers, then recoup the charges for the bulbs and mailing by adding charges to the customers' monthly bills.

Late Wednesday, Gov. Strickland asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to delay the start of the program.

Strickland said the media articles about the program state that "the PUCO approved the program to supply customers with two CFLs at a cost of sixty cents a month over three years for a total cost of $21.60."

"Ohioans are confused and angry and are looking for answers. First, the bulb program has been thrust upon them without their approval or prior knowledge."

"Second, it is my understanding that two bulbs will be provided at a cost in excess of $21. It is common knowledge that the efficient bulbs can be purchased for significantly less at popular retail outlets."...

State Sen. Tim Grendell, R-18, said, "It is unconscionable that the (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) approved this plan of First Energy to exploit its customers by making them buy light bulbs they don't even want, at prices that aren't even competitive."...

"First Energy implies that this is a state-mandated program via Senate Bill 221 of the 127th General Assembly, but this was never the intent of the General Assembly. I am very disappointed that PUCO approved this," he added.It's kind of amazing that the PUCO let this get through, but I guess it shows you what companies will try to get away with if you let 'em. (Also makes me wonder how much the PUCO is in their pockets.)

[Zombie Acorn]

We have all fluorescent lights here, not sure how energy efficient they are, but if the utility company sent me 2 bulbs and charged me $21 I would be irate.

[abijnk]

That.... is interesting... :confused:

[MacNut]

I don't know any utility regulatory commission that isn't in the utilities back pocket. They are supposed to protect the consumer but all they do is allow the utilities to do whatever they please.

[rhsgolfer33]

It is 60 cents per month over three years; people are really getting their panties in a bunch over this? Who cares. If they had tacked it on as some obscure 60 cent service charge no one would have noticed. I'd install them and forget about it, there is no way I would notice 60 cents each month.

[MacNut]

It is 60 cents per month over three years; people are really getting their panties in a bunch over this? Who cares. If they had tacked it on as some obscure 60 cent service charge no one would have noticed.The charge should not be there to begin with is the problem.

[Thomas Veil]

I don't care how spread-out the charge is, I don't want to pay $21.60 for two light bulbs that (the video segment showed) can be gotten at Target for $5.99. And I don't want my utility company telling me that I need to buy light bulbs from them.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Buying anything other than power from the power company is about as good of an idea as buying from one of those rent-to-own places that ends up charging $1900 on a $800 TV.

[rdowns]

It is 60 cents per month over three years; people are really getting their panties in a bunch over this? Who cares. If they had tacked it on as some obscure 60 cent service charge no one would have noticed. I'd install them and forget about it, there is no way I would notice 60 cents each month.


This isn't about 60 cents. This is about the power company abusing their monopoly position to rape their customers.

As said, they are charging $21 for a $6 item. Let's say administering the program adds $2 per, so they're ripping off each customer to the tune of $13. How many millions of customers do they have?

[XNine]

Well, being that energy companies are giant conglomerates backed by the US government to run regional monopolies, not much anyone can do. I suppose if they put together a class action something might be done, but let's face it, who's gonna sue over $22?

XCel is raising prices AGAIN here. It's like the 9th year in a row. Christ. I'm gonna have to start running off of a gasoline powered generator soon just to cut costs!

[Thomas Veil]

Ya know, I normally think a lot of companies are rip-off artists. It just strikes me that we're seeing a new level of brazen lately.

Our office is next door to a Time Warner Cable payment center. We've been hearing customers complaining about getting bills for $180. For one month. For the package: cable, internet, phone.

How the hell could it get as high as $180? Well, they're telling people they'd been getting an introductory deal (true, from what I hear), and the price was now $140 a month, and oh, by the way, your deal actually ran out last month, so we added $40 for that month as well. That's $180.

Sooner or later you begin to feel that this is how the companies see you:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/30/sucker_300.gif

[Zombie Acorn]

Ya know, I normally think a lot of companies are rip-off artists. It just strikes me that we're seeing a new level of brazen lately.

Our office is next door to a Time Warner Cable payment center. We've been hearing customers complaining about getting bills for $180. For one month. For the package: cable, internet, phone.

How the hell could it get as high as $180? Well, they're telling people they'd been getting an introductory deal (true, from what I hear), and the price was now $140 a month, and oh, by the way, your deal actually ran out last month, so we added $40 for that month as well. That's $180.

Sooner or later you begin to feel that this is how the companies see you:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/30/sucker_300.gif

Time Warner is going to get worse when they try their crap tier bandwidth system out nationwide (assuming they do).