degggendorf

degggendorf OP t1_j60n4fv wrote

Just what I outlined in the OP really.

Long wait for an appointment, then they don't even look at the car for days after the appointment. Poor communication, not calling back when they said they would. Beyond that, there are some widely known issues with the car (Ford Maverick) that they seemed completely oblivious to, even when there have been TSBs and the other acronym I can't remember for an issue Ford has acknowledged and/or published a fix for.

So all in all, they haven't really done anything bad, they just haven't done the good things if that makes sense.

3

degggendorf t1_j60dr71 wrote

> You yourself laid out your opinion of a realistic outcome which included "not many would participate" and "RIE would see non-debilitating loss of revenue".

Right, and you'll notice that I didn't include misinformation about shut offs like you did, and I gave my opinion from the factual starting point I laid out here a couple comments ago..."People could do what OP is suggesting and just not pay their bills until March 31 with zero repercussions. That would crush RIE's cashflow for the next two months, and get their attention. What would happen after that? Idk, that's where the discussion should happen."

It seems even more confusing that you'd spread anti-action misinformation if you so heartily support the action. Surely it would be in your interest to promote awareness of the limitations to RIE's power, to encourage more people to participate in some collective action rather than just reinforcing the reasons why everyone should be scared to.

0

degggendorf t1_j5zvmgj wrote

> who gives a shit if its cut off now mid winter (thankfully not an option) or when its warmer. That's irrelevant to whether or not RIE would be impacted by enough people deciding at once not to pay.

Those two are connected, don't you see it? The number of people who would be willing to skip a bill and immediately have their power shut off and account sent to collections is waaaaaaay smaller than the people who would be willing to skip a bill with zero repercussions for at least two months.

> Are you even reading my posts? The one at the top of this chain where I am arguing for collective action?

Yes, and I just read it again. It reads like you're trying to discourage people from even considering it. Here's a quick breakdown:

> Americans as a whole are terminally poisoned against it.

Peer pressure, saying no one does it so you shouldn't either.

> you get downvoted and ridiculed for even suggesting that public protest / collective action even be attempted.

A warning to not even talk about it

> they just get cut off without any progress made at all.

False info to further discourage it.

Look, I am sure you're not some undercover pro-corporate operative. BUT, if someone was one, I'd expect them to say very similar things. Start with a toothless word of support to appear to be on "the right" side, then dive into several reasons why no one should consider collective action.

1

degggendorf t1_j5zdgel wrote

> I want to believe that RIE doesn"t have infinite power to organize and enforce collections on a huge chunk of the state going deliquinent on their bills.

Through March, they have zero power to enforce collections.

> we'd have the police dragging people from their freezing homes en masse because RIE screwed the state over?

First, not paying a bill is not a criminal offense, so the police won't get involved.

Second, your house won't be freezing because RIE cannot shut anyone off until April 15.

Third, how do you see RIE screwing the state over? That 2% increase to their ROE that the PUC approved? Otherwise, the energy supply costs are a straight passthrough.

2

degggendorf t1_j5z9g9y wrote

> Suspended not waived.

Yes, I said suspended. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

People could do what OP is suggesting and just not pay their bills until March 31 with zero repercussions. That would crush RIE's cashflow for the next two months, and get their attention. What would happen after that? Idk, that's where the discussion should happen.

You misunderstanding/misrepresenting reality to shut down any notion of a boycott based on shutoffs and collections that legally cannot happen just seems foolish, if not blatantly pro-capitalist scaremongering.

0

degggendorf t1_j5ypqzl wrote

> Given that "the best deal possible" is 49% higher than what you were paying a few months before isn't really a deal it's just a way to normalize being shit on by a monopoly.

Do you really think that the only reason rates are higher is because RIE is making more money? Nothing outside of PPL is influencing the cost of energy?

1