AT&T Wildfire Satellite Receiver YouTube Video Response

This is the transcript from the YouTube Video Response to AT&T makes Azola couple a victim again -shame on AT&T.

This is an video response to the YouTube video which improperly expresses outrage over AT&T’s rep who said they would have to pay a bill on a satellite receiver even though their house had just burned down.

I’m siding with AT&T’s reaction here because the woman in the video is inadequately granting the manager with whom she spoke proper reasonable doubt, and may be bleeding her reaction to the house fire into an astonishment of AT&T’s statement about the receiver. This has nothing to do with a big corporation sending down harsh judgement on the little guy, it has to do with actually thinking before you make a snap reaction to their statement instead of reacting like someone with no forethought to their words.

There could be plenty of reasonable causes for the AT&T rep’s question, all of which are unknowns and therefore need to be disproven before a reaction of such a critical magnitude can even be justified. AT&T may get loads of calls about accidents and such, from individuals hoping to get out of having to compensate for a receiver debt. The problem here is that the viewer is more than likely reacting to inside information that the fire was actually true by having a third party confirm the devastation. The operator at the time may not have been able to feasibly verify the fact that their house was actually damaged. The fact that we can clearly see the house was actually destroyed in the background was not a matter possible to know over the phone.

The reaction of the interviewed woman not thinking about satellite receivers at the time is not something AT&T is liable for. I am sure in the contract signed when inking the deal for satellite service, a clause stated the fact that it was their responsibility. And it’s possible the guy signed up for services and didn’t tell wifey, so she might not have even known it would be something necessarily worth grabbing in the first place. The fact that the house was consumed hours later indicated that a reasonable amount of time was present to have prevented the issue in the first place.

Furthermore, getting emotional about your house being incinerated after having built it out in the woods in California, a land known for sweeping wildfires, is somewhat akin to getting upset over a sand castle being washed away by the high tide. Yes, losing your possessions is a negative thing, but who suggested you build it in a freakin forest in freakin wildfire central? That was their risk in the first place. In the list of things to weigh when deciding to build or move to a house in a potentially devestating area, this had to have come up. It was completely a gamble that turned awry. It had to have been expected in some way.

You can find a transcript of this response at ABLESTMAGE dot com, as well as other video response transcripts and respond directly at length. Thanks for listening!

The actual text read differs slightly than the transcript due to edits to correct pronunciation (Ex. “devastation” vs “dev astation”).