Comcast Hounded By Collections Agency

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Hounded By Collections Agency

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday April 23, 2011 @09:00AM from the turnabout-is-fair-play dept.

Bob the Super Hamste writes "According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Comcast is being taken to court for non-payment by a bill collection agency it used to collect past-due payments from customers. The suit alleges that Comcast agreed to pay $5 for each account it closed and that for each account the collection agency handled Comcast would pay 33% of the collected funds. The suit is seeking $314,210 for account cancellations and estimates Comcast owes them $50,000 for delinquent funds collected."

92 of 142 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

nt by shentino · 2011-04-23 09:04 · Score: 1

Ha ha
1. Re:nt by MightyYar · 2011-04-23 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I can't decide whether to rejoice because a collection agency got stiffed, or bust out the champagne because Comcast has been sued. Win-win!
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As much as I hate... by RobertM1968 · 2011-04-23 09:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

As much as I generally hate the practices of various collections agencies (and I've worked collections), I'm rooting for a Comcast loss on this one. Serves them right with the way they treat customers, and their attempts to destroy the Internet.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
1. Re:As much as I hate... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-04-23 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed.
  Collections agencies behave immorally but legally, and companies sell to them because it gives them some money from past due accounts and the immorality is not directed at the company.
  But Comcast sending its past-due customers to a collections agency and then refusing to pay its own bill (simplifying the facts but taking the alleged facts to be true) is the height of hypocrisy.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
2. Re:As much as I hate... by hedwards · 2011-04-23 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I disagree, collections agencies aren't inherently immoral, it's just that many do end up crossing the line both ethically and legally speaking. Without collections agencies the only reason that anybody would ever pay their bills would be because it was the ethical thing to do. Consequently the cost of just about anything would likely sky rocket.
  That's not to say that there aren't a sufficient number of collection agencies that do behave illegally, but I do think that to some extent you have to recognize that it's a service that's needed and just make sure that you know your rights.
  I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but they do have to prove that they own the debt and that you are indeed responsible for paying it, if they can't do that then there are penalties for harassing people. There is also typically a statute of limitation on debt, and one shouldn't believe them when they claim that they're going to collect old debts by going to court. Collection Practices
3. Re:As much as I hate... by Seumas · 2011-04-23 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Some collection agencies behave morally. Many do not.
  When I was eleven or twelve years old, my mom was being hounded by a collector. One day, we discovered that the outgoing/greeting on the answering machine had been changed to something absolutely repulsive about my mother. I was blamed for it, because my family had no idea that there were default codes to let you set your answering machine voice remotely and the idea that someone could have done this without physical access to the answering machine seemed impossible to them. It was assumed that I was just being a dick and had a friend leave the greeting (because eleven year old kids always have close friends who sound like 45 year old deep voiced guys with a speaking style that clearly indicates they spend all day talking to people on the phone). (And yes, it was obviously a bill collector, because you could tell from his manner of speaking as well as the content of the message).
  I know things were different in the late 80s, but I'm pretty sure that action is neither moral nor legal.
4. Re:As much as I hate... by Runaway1956 · 2011-04-23 09:39 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I'll agree - collection agencies are a necessary evil. But, necessary or not, they are still evil - or most of them are.
  Oh yeah - the statute of limitations. We were given one of those damned credit cards, years ago. Didn't ask for it, didn't want it - should have just cut it up, but we ketp it laying around. One day, we NEEDED some auto repairs, and used that stupid card. Then, I got laid off, only weeks later. The bill came, and the wife sent them a letter, explaining that I was laid off of work, and we wanted to take advantage of thier sales point in the brochure that came with the card. "If you lose your job, we'll waive three months payments" yada yada yada. They stopped sending bills, but a few years later, some collection agency took it to court. The wife looked at the summons, and laughed. She took a day off of work, went to court, and told the judge that the statute of limitations had expired. I'm pretty certain that the collection agency ASSumed that we would ignore the summons, and that they would win by default.
  My wife is pretty smart, sometimes. But, don't anyone tell her that I said that!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
5. Re:As much as I hate... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-04-23 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  They aren't inherently immoral, but generally there is an attempt to get people to pay something toward debt when it is no longer required that they pay it, to reset the statute of limitations. This is basically a trick, to make them legally responsible for paying the debt. This is immoral, because it is a practice done to make someone do something very much against their interests, in a way which punishes more moral behavior, under the pretext of doing something that is both morally preferable and that seems to be doing them a favor.
  Similar to many police interrogation techniques. Like asking first offenders who don't know better not to admit their guilt, but to write apology letters which are then used to convict them. You may call these necessary evils, but they are not moral--they trick suspects and punish the more moral among them, who actually feel they've done something wrong.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
6. Re:As much as I hate... by cecom · 2011-04-23 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand this irrational hate. How is Comcast trying to destroy the Internet? They have clearly defined caps, they are one of the first trying to deploy IPv6 to consumers, they offer one of the best speeds. No, they are not perfect, and they are not cheap, but as an ISP they are better than AT&T, for example.
7. Re:As much as I hate... by pitterpatter · 2011-04-23 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Without collections agencies the only reason that anybody would ever pay their bills would be because it was the ethical thing to do. Consequently the cost of just about anything would likely sky rocket.
  No, without enforced collections, you'd have to pay for everything before you received it. Consequently the cost of many things would plummet, some of them dramatically. And that's before counting the effects of the resulting global depression.
8. Re:As much as I hate... by Stray7Xi · 2011-04-23 10:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I disagree, collection agencies whole intent is to be immoral (keyword being agencies, there's nothing wrong with collections). The only reason it's profitable to pay an outside company to collect debts is because they can cross those lines of morality and decency that would have landed Comcast in a PR nightmare. It's a shell game to avoid the consequences of their actions.
  Customers should be responsible to pay their debts and companies should bear scrutiny for how they treat their customers.
9. Re:As much as I hate... by RobertM1968 · 2011-04-23 10:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't understand this irrational hate. How is Comcast trying to destroy the Internet? They have clearly defined caps, they are one of the first trying to deploy IPv6 to consumers, they offer one of the best speeds. No, they are not perfect, and they are not cheap, but as an ISP they are better than AT&T, for example.
  I've got Cablevision. I'd never give ATT a dime. As for Comcast and their faster speeds, there are odd throttles and caps on those and a plethora of other issues (research it if you dont believe me - a lot of people are already complaining about the uselessness of their Extreme105 service) making those faster speeds that cost more, not really worth it. Their customer service is horrendous. IPv6 rollout is irrelevant - it's something that has to be done. They do their damndest to filter traffic every way they think they can get away with (and that too, like the odd throttling on their fastest services, is NOT clearly spelled out anywhere).
  And for me to say that Comcast doesnt treat their customers well (which is what I consider the above to mean) has nothing to do with whether or not ATT does or doesnt either. They can both fit in the same boat with plenty of room to spare... for instance, for companies like RoadRunner or TimeWarner Cable. Remember, I never said they were the only one who fit in that category. I simply exclusively mentioned them, as the others are not relevant to this discussion (as they are not the ones being sued).
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
10. Re:As much as I hate... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're an idiot. Seriously...you think the only reason people pay their bills is because of collection agencies, or otherwise because it's the moral thing to do?? Holy shit, man, wake the fuck up. Most people pay their bills because they want the service they are paying for.
  Duh?
11. Re:As much as I hate... by cheekyjohnson · 2011-04-23 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  but they are not moral
  Morals are subjective. But I'd say that it's more corrupt than anything else (since apparently they never had any evidence to begin with).
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
12. Re:As much as I hate... by cecom · 2011-04-23 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I am a Comcast customer (have been for several years) and I really don't have issues, especially in the last couple of years. Before that there were service outages for about an hour every week, which was annoying as hell. The speed is reliable 5up / 20down and I haven't ever hit any throttling or caps, considering that my usage pattern is hardly typical (remote access to different machines, shared document editing, VPNs, transferring large amounts of data over SSH, etc). The only time I remember needing a Comcast technician - when I moved in my current place - he was on time and did his job.
  Of course that is just my personal experience, but it is the only one I have :-) It may depend on where you live - I am located in the Bay Area - but it bothers me to see Comcast constantly being vilified, when my personal experience with them has been consistently good, and as far as I can tell they are actually better than some other ISPs.
  My only real complaint is that 5up/20down should cost like $10 a month, and it should be the only kind of service I need from Comcast :-) (With Netflix and, say, Vonage).
13. Re:As much as I hate... by luther349 · 2011-04-23 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  they also charge the most and the only reasion there caps are defined was due to a class action lawsuit. before they got forced to define a cap they would just pick on peple at random. ccomcast is the worst company to deal with. and comcast is not the fastest yes you might get better speed but enjoy it when you hit the cap and they cut your ass off. ill still be downloading happly on my uncapped dsl.
14. Re:As much as I hate... by The+End+Of+Days · 2011-04-23 12:32 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently trying to collect the debt is evil. You know, the myth of the noble poor and all that.
15. Re:As much as I hate... by Your.Master · 2011-04-23 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  He's talking about a bill for a service that is not ongoing.
  If you had a contractor come and install air conditioning, you could bilk him on the bill because you already got the service you didn't pay for.
  Collection agencies and morality are two major reasons why you'd pay. The third, which the GP did miss, is credit rating, which affects your ability to get services for bills in the future.
16. Re:As much as I hate... by Gordo_1 · 2011-04-23 13:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How could anyone think it makes sense to mod this up? The initial premise (that collection agencies are evil) is not even remotely supported by the relayed story.
  P.S. Statute of limitations my ass. You and your wife are the kind of folks that make things more expensive for the rest of us.
17. Re:As much as I hate... by RobertM1968 · 2011-04-23 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ah... well, try their Extreme105 then, since that's what I am talking about when it comes to weird throttling and caps. Or try a bunch of bittorrent and see how fast you get throttled. I could never use them... I use bittorrent a lot (in bursts every few months for weeks straight). Oh, I should clarify, I use it for LEGITIMATE purposes, such as helping to seed our newest Star Trek Phase 2 Episodes, or to grab copies off the torrent to check out what speeds our viewers should be seeing (ie: how the seeds are handling it, etc).
  I had Comcast down in MD for a while... switched to one of the dish providers. I was much happier (I already had high speed Internet from elsewhere, so that loss that most people would feel didn't apply to me - though for a while, we were using them, and could never get rated speeds, to which they kept pulling out the "up to" clause while our connection was down at dial-up speeds). Glad to hear they're at least treating you well, but contrary to the "hardly typical" usage patterns you think you have, you don't fit the criteria for the points I made - not being an Extreme 105 customer - nor being someone who uses a protocol that fits within their regular throttling scheme.
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
18. Re:As much as I hate... by sjames · 2011-04-23 14:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Without collections agencies, there would just be less credit and more security deposits on monthly billings. Creditors don't want to go that way because it would make the potential buyer give more thought to how they will pay the bills later and perhaps talk themselves out of purchases they can only marginally afford.
  Most people DO pay their bills for 2 reasons. Because it's the right thing to do and because they don't want their credit rating to go down the toilet. By the time a collection agency gets involved it's generally because there is a legitimate dispute or because the person actually cannot pay the bill.
  Fortunately (sort of), my contact with collection agencies has been of the third sort, when they call repeatedly because they refuse to believe that the person they are looking for does not and has never lived here or had that phone number and that nobody who does live here has ever heard of the person.
  The problem with that is that I am not the debtor so I have no standing to insist they only contact the person through a lawyer or that they send evidence of the debt. Meanwhile, they don't believe me and are by nature asses so they keep calling from different numbers claiming to be different companies, but all with the same script.
  Since this has happened quite a few times, *I* for one would be happy to have them outlawed. They cause way too much trouble for people who are not even imagined to owe a debt.
19. Re:As much as I hate... by DCFusor · 2011-04-23 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  So you think a tiny amount of people are ethical? Wow, I guess refusing to allow schools to teach right from wrong worked out great! And due to everything being everywhere these days, the threat of "I won't do any more business with you" isn't much of a threat anymore. I didn't realize y'all city boys were getting so degraded. Out here if you forget your money at the store, you just say so and pay next time. Still. Get away from that kind of "civilization" where ethics are unknown while you still can, is all I can say.
  
  But here's what's evil. In two cases (both involving phone companies) I've been hit by collections people who try (but in my case failed) to make your life a living hell. No, they don't have to prove they own the debt unless you sue them -- which you can't do in your jurisdiction, so get out the wallet anyway.
  
  And in both cases the phone companies had admitted I was right, they were wrong, I didn't owe them anything -- that's hard enough to get, anyone else here ever done that? But once that debt is sold, it's a Pyrrhic victory at best -- the calls keep coming.
  
  One was from AT&T about tens of thousands of dollars of phone calls supposedly made to psychics -- on a dedicated line that had a modem on it 24/7 (remember those days?) -- this psychic setup owned its own collection agency. They're gone (jailed) now, but I still here from the agency that bought this "debt" a few times a year. Dream on, suckers -- I have logs from the sysadmin at my ISP, but it's too pita to take those suckers to court, I have a life.
  
  The other was a cancellation fee Verizon admitted they didn't owe me, for allowing me to buy a phone in an area where they had exactly zero coverage within 25 miles of my house. Phone was nice at the store...and I paid for over a year for a phone I could only use about once a week while grocery shopping. That one is still calling and sending letters and threats, and DID mess up my credit rating.
  
  If I wasn't rich -- I'd care -- have no use for credit, thanks. You should care though. How many people here could deal with a screwed credit rating by one of these guys. Yeah, a pragmatist would just pay them and forget it. I will never do that. Some of us do have principles. And it's not exactly like I'd be ripping off Mother Teresa, eh?
  
  The laws are written such that correctness of the collector is assumed, in other words, you are by law, explicitly assumed guilty unless you prove otherwise, and in a court and jurisdiction of the other guy's choosing. Go check -- I'm not making this up, and paid a lawyer to find it out.
  
  Sure, people who don't pay for what they get are a drag on everyone. I'm just upset that this is how they deal with it, since not everyone who is not paying is one of those -- some are being ripped off and extorted with "credit rating damage". That's not morally any different than some legal firm sending out thousands of "settle up or go to court" letters to random addresses for the RIAA -- no different at all.
  
  --
  Why guess when you can know? Measure!
20. Re:As much as I hate... by Runaway1956 · 2011-04-23 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  No, the people who offered the credit card were in breach of contract. They PROMISED to do such and such, and instead, did thus and so. Had they made those three month's payments THAT WERE IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WROTE, there would have been no debt to take to court.
  It's their own fault they decided to renege on the contract, and it's their own fault that they waited for years to send the thing to collection and it's the collection agency's own fault that they didn't spot the statute of limitations thing.
  Immoral? If you think that we were immoral for getting over on the credit card company for a few hundred dollars, I don't know what to say.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
21. Re:As much as I hate... by Archangel+Michael · 2011-04-23 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Comcast sucks.
  I have, a supposedly "high speed" capability on my line, and yet, I cannot watch Netflix or YouTube without substantial delays in playback. While I'm having trouble with these services, I can load up a DSL Reports Speed test and it clearly shows that my throughput is just fine, for that.
  Now, can you tell me that Netflix and Google don't have the servers to fill my pipes, while DSL Reports can?
  Mind you, on my virtually unlimited network at work (CA HSN) I NEVER seem to have these problems.
  Next is VOIP telephony, which has similar problems as Netflix and YouTube. VOIP is such a low bandwidth usage, that plain old slow DSL should be able to handle it. However, I cannot use Vonage or similar services because the quality just sucks. In fact, AT&T DSL, with slower speeds is faster than Comcast in many ways.
  The problem is that the boarder routers of Comcast are prioritizing packets based on destination. That is the ONLY way this shit happens.
  Finally, Comcast and AT&T must be taking customer service tips from each other, because both are pure garbage.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
22. Re:As much as I hate... by ptbarnett · 2011-04-23 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with that is that I am not the debtor so I have no standing to insist they only contact the person through a lawyer or that they send evidence of the debt. Meanwhile, they don't believe me and are by nature asses so they keep calling from different numbers claiming to be different companies, but all with the same script.
  I had the same problem. I sent them a certified letter, noting exactly what you said: since I wasn't the debtor, I couldn't demand they stop calling me under the Fair Debut Collection Practices Act
  But, if they continued to contact me after being informed that I wasn't their target and didn't know their target, I would consider it harassment. I cited the specific state law that described the offense of harassment. And I stated flatly that the next time they called me, I would be calling the police in their jurisdiction and filing a complaint.
  I also sent copies of my letter to the Attorney General's office in my state and in their state.
  I never heard from them again, and the case was never sold to anyone else, either.
23. Re:As much as I hate... by Thalagyrt · 2011-04-23 16:26 · Score: 2
  
  They did exactly what the contract says and exactly what they said they'd do: they waived the monthly payment for three months. They didn't waive a portion of the balance, they didn't pay it for you, they waived the minimum monthly payment. As such, if there was interest, you'd have interest charges, and the balance would increase a bit over those three months. There isn't any way whatsoever that "we will waive the monthly payment for 3 months" equates to "we will pay your balance for you."
  
  --
  Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
24. Re:As much as I hate... by bzipitidoo · 2011-04-23 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Without collections agencies the only reason that anybody would ever pay their bills would be because it was the ethical thing to do. Consequently the cost of just about anything would likely sky rocket.
  Wow, what a negative view of humanity. If that were really true, one of the few good things that would be is that the entertainment industry would have long since lost their war on piracy. Most people deal fairly most of the time, out of more than enlightened self-interest. We have these highly developed feelings that serve us well in this. We really do care that artists and children not starve, that others treat us the way we treat them, and that there is law and order. The few who don't genuinely feel that way we call sociopaths.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
25. Re:As much as I hate... by realityimpaired · 2011-04-24 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  There's missing information here, though....
  Specifically, did the company in question resume sending bills after the 3 months were up or not?
  If the company did not resume sending bills after the 3 months had passed, then the company has no right to send the account to collections, and he was within his rights to challenge them in court. If it were me, I would have filed a countersuit for damages caused by sending me to collections, because that would seriously affect my credit rating (which is near perfect at the moment). The agreement was to suspend billing for 3 months, not to suspend billing for several years and then send him to collections for not paying the bills he wasn't receiving.
  If the company did resume sending bills after the 3 months, or if the company did like my credit card company would, and continued sending bills during the 3 months in question, but sent them showing balance due but minimum payment of $0, then he was a douche and should have paid the bill.
  Part of me says it's his own fault, as my personal practice is to cancel any credit card I didn't apply for... if I needed something in a hurry and didn't have balance left on my credit cards, that's why I have a line of credit with the bank (something that never happens, one of them has a balance of $0 and a limit of $20,000, and never gets used except in emergencies, the other has a limit of $2000 and keeps a running balance as I put my monthly recurring bills on it, but gets paid off every month, it's also the one I use when I don't have enough cash on hand to complete my transaction). But by the same token, he's not giving us enough information about the card company's behaviour to absolve the company entirely.
26. Re:As much as I hate... by idlehanz · 2011-04-24 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Fair Debt Collections Act (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf) specifies the rules for practices that are allowed. The challenge is that say a company violates this practice, the person whose rights have been impinged upon then has to decide if it is worth the cost to pursue action.
  While I haven't had to deal with this very often I have had a couple instances where I disputed a debt claim. The challenge is that even if you dispute the claim the collection agency doesn't care. Once they've had the account transferred to them it just goes in the harassment hopper. In my experience if you email or snail mail them, even if you cite the Fair Debt Collections Act you will be ignored. However, I have found that if you send your response by registered mail (someone has to sign for it), the collection agency cannot pretend they didn't receive it. I don't know if getting the registered mail flags the account as someone that is serious about taking action, but the two times that I have disputed a debt, sending the registered letter and noting violating actions put an end to the harassment .
  The irony in the case of this story (company that is washing their hands of the problem) and the company handling the washing is just too sweet.
  
  --
  Changing the world... one research project at a time.
27. Re:As much as I hate... by EdIII · 2011-04-24 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  To my knowledge that is not how it works. Or, very rarely is an outside company contracted to "communicate" with the customer and get them to pay debt, while the original company is still owed.
  The vast majority of time, and this is where you hear terms like 6 month old debt, is that ABC company will sell 100,000$ worth of that debt for a percentage. A good reason to do so is that it cleans up their books. They also get to write off the difference as a loss. I am sure you heard about the "massive write-downs" in the news the last couple of years. That's what it means.
  Once the debt has not been collected on for a year or so, or less, collection company A sells the debt again to collection company B for the same reasons as the original company.
  Rinse and Repeat.
  Eventually, company F has a $45,000 original payment owed with like 5 years of interest, but probably purchased it for $100 at most. So the entire time the amount owed stays the same and suffers interest allowable by law (it varies).
  When the statute of limitations has been reached, and the consumer has not communicated with *anybody* owed the debt during the whole period. Communicate one time and the clock resets.
  It's hard for me to argue that companies should not have the right to sell debt in this fashion.
  What I see the need for is enforcement and enhancement of the regulations and laws that govern the actions of the collection agencies themselves. That's where reform is needed.
  I don't know the whole situation with Comcast either. There are some collection agencies out there so messed up in their actions towards consumers that they may have crossed the line. Stuff like:
  1) We know where you live
  2) You can go to jail for not paying us
  3) We can take your property from you tomorrow to sell your debt
  4) Social services can take your children since only bad parents have collection agencies after them
  All kinds of nasty stuff they have pulled (a lot of which is covered under current law). Who knows why Comcast decided to not do business with them anymore and not pay.
  I wish Sprint would do something. There is a collection agency that collects for Sprint that is one degree removed from Satan. Combine that with Sprint have the highest number of fraudulent accounts created and you have a really messed up situation.
  I was sued for thousands of dollars for a Sprint bill opened in my name, while I had AT&T service. Scam artists. Always offer to settle and they make it seem easier than going to court. So basically, extortion.
  When you have somebody owe you $45,000 dollars with interest racked up what do you have to lose being an asshole collecting it when you bought it for $100?
28. Re:As much as I hate... by sjames · 2011-04-24 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, a third case where the collection agency does nothing constructive.
  The point though is that they rarely serve any constructive purpose but often cause unwarranted harm. In the cases where the debt is eventually paid, it's either because they harassed someone into giving in when they were probably in the right or the person became able to pay again (and would have even without the collection agency being involved).
29. Re:As much as I hate... by xclr8r · 2011-04-24 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  The individual in question owed money to the credit card using a service advertised by said credit card - The store != the credit card so has no bearing on prices (everyone pays).
  
  FYI credit cards offer rates to 'most' people from 14-22% and were making money hand over fist before the rates got that high. So again even if you want to make the claim he is making things expensive for everyone else who has a credit card you are incorrect. If you don't like it then go with a credit card that does not offer that service. If you have a stellar credit rating then you can get a low interest cc unlike this guy who will be marked for about 7 years on his credit report.
  
  I really love how callous everyone gets about other people costing them money... until it is the day when oh crap it's me without a job trying to feed a family and keep a roof over his/her head.
  
  --
  Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
30. Re:As much as I hate... by Legion303 · 2011-04-25 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  "as an ISP they are better than AT&T, for example."
  Well, Pol Pot might be a brutal murderer, but as a dictator he is better than Hitler, for example. You clean up that country, Pol Pot!
31. Re:As much as I hate... by Coren22 · 2011-04-25 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you can get Verizon FiOS where you are, get it. I have it in Glen Burnie, and love it. I have 25/25, and routinely hit those speeds, have never had an item blocked (my own web server..no email server yet) and don't see throttling on my connection for any service (bittorent included).
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
32. Re:As much as I hate... by Coren22 · 2011-04-25 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Comcast is known for their problems with Netflix. As they are a cable provider, they refuse to let a Netflix server onto their network (it would compete with their offerings), and their uplink connections to the internet are often saturated.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
33. Re:As much as I hate... by RobertM1968 · 2011-04-25 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you can get Verizon FiOS where you are, get it. I have it in Glen Burnie, and love it. I have 25/25, and routinely hit those speeds, have never had an item blocked (my own web server..no email server yet) and don't see throttling on my connection for any service (bittorent included).
  I use way too much traffic (hint: see my sig) to use FIOS. At my level (from friends' experiences in the area, who use about 1/10th the traffic), they throttle, block or entirely disconnect. As I run the STP2 Post Production FTP servers, my bandwidth usage often hits into the multi-terabyte range per month... so while you haven't had a problem, I do know people running into the 100-250GB range who are (as you can see, 1/10th of my current traffic is no small number).
  And, whatever call centers service this area are pathetic. Sadly, for my paying job, I've run into innumerable times I've had to call FIOS support on behalf of a customer. In that, Cablevision is top of the line. No "read questions from a script" and very easy to ask for the next level at any point in the call (and even if I dont ask, and what I start talking about is above their heads, they OFFER to transfer me).
  For small scale stuff, they're probably a good fit - but alas, I've long since passed that stage.
  Much thanks for the suggestion, though. :-)
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
34. Re:As much as I hate... by Coren22 · 2011-04-26 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a light user either. I run legal torrents as well, and use Netflix almost constantly while playing four clients of Eve Online, and keeping that patched on two installs (around 4 GB of patches a month there) and running my own Teamspeak, Ventrilo, and Web servers.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
35. Re:As much as I hate... by anamin · 2011-04-26 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Really sounds more like the credit issuer dropped the ball by not sending any bills indicating balance due, but yet you seem to make it out to be the problem of the these folks.
36. Re:As much as I hate... by RobertM1968 · 2011-05-02 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a light user either. I run legal torrents as well, and use Netflix almost constantly while playing four clients of Eve Online, and keeping that patched on two installs (around 4 GB of patches a month there) and running my own Teamspeak, Ventrilo, and Web servers.
  Thanks. There was no typo in my post though. ;-) I really did mean TERAbytes a month (heck, the forums and website alone come close to a terabyte during busy months). Once our friends started hitting the low hundreds, they were throttled (semi lucky one), port blocked (two semi lucky friends) or disconnected (totally screwed friend). They wouldnt offer us a suitable SLA either - unless we went to (slower) business DSL or (faster) T3 and up. You don't even wanna know what those would have cost.
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
37. Re:As much as I hate... by RobertM1968 · 2011-05-02 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Above post should read: "Once our friends started hitting the low hundreds gigabyte range..."
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
38. Re:As much as I hate... by Coren22 · 2011-05-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  DS3 (T= telephone, DS = data service, this is a common mistake, and I even make it in normal speech) costs approximately $1700 a month for my office. If you are hitting terabytes a month, you should be paying for colo facilities, not running it from your house.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
plese give them the sci-fi channel by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-04-23 09:05 · Score: 1, Offtopic

please give them the sci-fi channel so some one can save it from what NBC did to it!
Re:What is next? by bogaboga · 2011-04-23 09:05 · Score: 1, Informative

OR maybe there employees?
I think you meant "OR maybe their employees?"
Emphasis mine.
Instead of taking them to court by Dachannien · 2011-04-23 09:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Why doesn't this debt collector just use normal debt collection tactics, and call Comcast several times a day every day with threats of legal action? It's a lot cheaper than actually filing a lawsuit.
1. Re:Instead of taking them to court by socsoc · 2011-04-23 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  wooosh
2. Re:Instead of taking them to court by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-04-23 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but with very rare exceptions, getting a court judgment doesn't change anything.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
3. Re:Instead of taking them to court by realityimpaired · 2011-04-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if I get a call from a collection agency and I inform the person I speak with that the charge is illegitimate and I intend to challenge it, it is harrassment if the collection agency keeps calling you.
  Depending on jurisdiction, at least. But I have successfully sued a collection agency for far more than the debt in question was (and also successfully sued the company that sent me to the collection agency because, surprise surprise, it was actually their fuckup and I could prove they'd been paid in full the day I received the first bill).
4. Re:Instead of taking them to court by TubeSteak · 2011-04-23 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but with very rare exceptions, getting a court judgment doesn't change anything.
  Once you have a court judgement, you can do asshole things like attach a lien onto their assets and get a sheriff's levy.
  The only time a court judgement doesn't change anything is when you sue someone with no assets or income.
  Corporations OTOH are perfect targets for lien's and levies.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
5. Re:Instead of taking them to court by hedwards · 2011-04-23 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Depending upon jurisdiction that might not be the case. Some jurisdictions a verbal warning to stop is sufficient, but even there it's advisable to send a written notice by registered mail requesting proof that the debt is owed and that they are targeting the correct person. Makes it a lot harder to pretend that they didn't get it or weren't told.
6. Re:Instead of taking them to court by luther349 · 2011-04-23 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  you might work for one of the better ones. many of them lack any real paper work to acully sue and just showing to court is enough to get jugment in your favor due to lack of evdance. they just shoot for people not to show and get defult jugments.
Serves them right by grapeape · 2011-04-23 09:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

I had Lindy's collection service calling my house with a robodial at all hours multiple time a day for over year...even after I explained to them that I have never had comcast and never will because they aren't even available where I live. Apparently that was some kind of confirmation to them that it was my debt. I ended up having to get an attorney friend of mine after them to get them to stop. It turned out to be someone with the same first and last name that lived in the same area code but not the same town.
1. Re:Serves them right by socsoc · 2011-04-23 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your lawyer friend wasn't aware of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
2. Re:Serves them right by grapeape · 2011-04-23 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Umm yes my attorney friend was quite aware, which is how as I stated in the original post that he was able to get them to stop.
Good show by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 09:18 · Score: 1

Excellent catch. By pointing out the spelling error, you not only proved your intellectual superiority (which is the only kind of superiority that really matters), but you also made a valuable and insightful contribution to the discussion.
Bravo.
1. Re:Good show by Concerned+Onlooker · 2011-04-23 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I for one, appreciate it. After all, if the Slashdot crowd--supposedly a little brighter than the average Joe--can't get it together enough to know the difference between they're and their then we are indeed in trouble.
  I suspect that the same people who complain about spelling and grammar 'Nazis' are the same ones who would deride a liberal arts major for not knowing calculus. Perhaps next time I write down an equation I'll just substitute some of the "+" signs for "-" signs and then deride anyone who corrects me as a math Nazi.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
2. Re:Good show by The+End+Of+Days · 2011-04-23 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  If English required technical accuracy to work, your analogy would make more sense.
3. Re:Good show by clang_jangle · 2011-04-23 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  I for one, appreciate it. After all, if the Slashdot crowd--supposedly a little brighter than the average Joe--can't get it together enough to know the difference between they're and their then we are indeed in trouble.
  Agreed, these discussions are far too rife with self-righteous stupidity like that. If you make a mistake and don't want to know about it, you probably don't belong on slashdot -- real nerds care about knowledge and would rather know the truth even if it means they are wrong!
  
  I suspect that the same people who complain about spelling and grammar 'Nazis' are the same ones who would deride a liberal arts major for not knowing calculus.
  
  Yes, the same ones who call gentoo users "ricers" because belittling is easier than doing. The tyranny of the moronic has become ubiquitous on slashdot.
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
4. Re:Good show by Locke2005 · 2011-04-23 10:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I beg to differ. Penis-length superiority is the only kind of superiority that really matters!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
5. Re:Good show by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  I beg to differ. Penis-length superiority is the only kind of superiority that really matters!
  It's the girth that matters most, not the length.
6. Re:Good show by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  N.B. - I'm a different AC, not the GP.
  
  I for one, appreciate it. After all, if the Slashdot crowd--supposedly a little brighter than the average Joe--can't get it together enough to know the difference between they're and their then we are indeed in trouble.
  If you, as a member of said brighter-than-average crowd, cannot distinguish between an honest-to-goodness typo and an inability to distinguish between "their" and "there", I think that's a much bigger sign that we're in trouble.
  The GP really has a point, though. Pedantry really doesn't buy us anything. Somebody made a mistake, but everybody else knew what was meant, so the correct course of action would've been to simply let it rest and focus on the important issues. That some of us here are apparently unable to do THAT is also cause for concern; what's more, it's evidence that while we may indeed be brighter than the "average Joe", we're not making good use of our above-average intelligence. We're losing sight of the big picture, fail to see the forest for the trees, and get bogged down in unimportant details. All that reflects pretty poorly on us - at least those that do these things, like the GGP (and you).
7. Re:Good show by Belial6 · 2011-04-23 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  I complain about spelling and grammar 'Nazis' because they are always hypocrites. 100% of the times that I have called them on it, and carried the conversation long enough, they have made a spelling or grammar mistake. Why? Because sometimes people make spelling and grammar mistakes.
8. Re:Good show by Delarth799 · 2011-04-23 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  And by showing his intellectual superiority on the internet, the most important of all places, his e-peen has also grown by another .5 points!
9. Re:Good show by by+(1706743) · 2011-04-23 13:19 · Score: 2
  
  If English required technical accuracy to work, your analogy would make more sense.
  English requires technical accuracy to work well, just the same as math. If I start Taylor-expanding something for a few more terms than necessary, but mess up the signs on the higher order terms, my answer could still be qualitatively right; however, it introduces some ambiguity -- "is this dude doing something tricky that I don't understand, or is he just wrong?"
  
  Both "OR maybe they're employees?" and "OR maybe their employees?" make sense, but mean very different things (I realize the original mistake used "there," but still...).
  
  Personally, I just find it difficult to "decode" certain botched sentences. For example, "on sundae I went two the store and wile I was they're aye red a book (vary suite!) and blue my knows," is...well, tricky to read (reed?). I know, an exaggerated example...
10. Re:Good show by by+(1706743) · 2011-04-23 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  You actually demonstrated how one can be totally ungrammatical but still convey the information, which maybe you intended to bolster my point? Thank you!
  Certainly. By returning the favor, please fork GCC such that any syntax error is automatically fixed with something syntactically valid. No one should be bothered with semicolons, matching parentheses and braces, etc.
11. Re:Good show by CohibaVancouver · 2011-04-23 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  After all, if the Slashdot crowd--supposedly a little brighter than the average Joe--can't get it together enough to know the difference between they're and their then we are indeed in trouble
  Exactly right. If you're unsure of your grammar, write your reply in your favourite "word processor," correct the grammar and spelling mistakes, then paste it to Slashdot and click the preview button. Once you've confirmed your tags and links are correct, submit the sucker and you're off to the races. How hard is that?
12. Re:Good show by Locke2005 · 2011-04-23 16:47 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, sure it is, Tuna Can Tommy...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
13. Re:Good show by slackbheep · 2011-04-23 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Worrying about correct spelling, pronunciation or grammar while posting on the internet is much like wearing a suit and tie to a crack den.
14. Re:Good show by Concerned+Onlooker · 2011-04-24 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect reply.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I always assumed the agencies worked differently by mooingyak · 2011-04-23 09:38 · Score: 1

I had always assumed that they would collect whatever they could, take their cut, and then pass the rest along to the client. Seems odd to me that the agency doing the collecting didn't have their money upfront on each collection.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:I always assumed the agencies worked differentl by GNU(slash)Nickname · 2011-04-23 09:44 · Score: 1

The 33% is out of any money that people paid Comcast directly after their accounts had been turned over to Lindy's.
Debt collectors break the law all the time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 09:44 · Score: 1

Maybe you should check the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and listen to some calls. A fun game is seeing how many violations they can squeeze into those few minutes. If Section 813 did not make these cases so hard to prove, I guaranty there would be a ton of cases and class actions.
1. Re:Debt collectors break the law all the time by tompaulco · 2011-04-23 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, debt collectors will absolutely behave legally, once they understand that you know your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Act. Unfortunately, they can only be penalized if they continue to behave illegally after you have told them that you wish them to stop harassing you at work, on your cell phone or whatever.
  Also, debt collectors (and lawyers) seem to have a problem with their mail delivery. Apparently, they only are able to receive mail that has been sent signature verified. If you get a letter in the mail that says you have 30 days to dispute a debt, and you mail them a response via first class mail AND call them to explain that this is not your debt, then the next month you will receive another letter that says "Since you did not respond to our initial letter, you admit that you are responsible for this debt...".
  And I love the messages I keep getting on my answering machine, saying "This message is for . If you are not hang up now. By continuing to listen to this message, you admit that you are ....". As if they can change who I am by just saying so on an answering machine.
  Or the half a dozen calls that I got on my cell phone for a person that used to rent a house from me and who actually still owes me money. The recording on the phone told me to press 2 if I was not this person. I did press 2 every time they called for about a half a dozen times before finally pressing 1 (which means I was admitting I was this person, even though I am not). But by admitting I was this person that I was not, I finally got to talk to a human and tell them that they had better stop calling me, or they would face financial penalties. The calls stopped.
  Unfortunately, the Fair Debt Collection act does not offer the same benefits to people who are merely mistaken for being the debtors as it does to the debtors themselves.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:I always assumed the agencies worked differentl by mooingyak · 2011-04-23 09:58 · Score: 1

Ah. That makes sense then, thanks.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:I always assumed the agencies worked differentl by TubeSteak · 2011-04-23 10:00 · Score: 1

I had always assumed that they would collect whatever they could, take their cut, and then pass the rest along to the client. Seems odd to me that the agency doing the collecting didn't have their money upfront on each collection.
Collection agencies generally work one of two ways.
1. They buy the debt outright (from Comcast) and whatever they can nag out of you is 100% theirs
2. They are contracted to nag the hell out of you for a cut of whatever you pay to the company you owe (Comcast).
In the first case, if you pay Comcast instead of the collection agency, the collection agency gets nothing.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I hope by Wireless+Joe · 2011-04-23 10:04 · Score: 1

I hope they call every VP and above at home 3-4 times a day to try to collect.
Having dealt with MN collections agencies before.. by damn_registrars · 2011-04-23 10:22 · Score: 2

I can tell you they hold all the cards. They can call as often as they want and say damned near anything they want. There is even a state law that specifically allows the people making the calls to use false names to identify themselves, as long as the company name is legit. One effect of this is that after you are called by "Elvis" or "Kirby Puckett" or any other bogus name, you try to call them at the number they left and you'll never get ahold of that person because whomever answers the phone won't know who used that false name.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:On the subject of Comcast and collections by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 10:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

You said: "I'm like 2 months late on my Internet bill" ... followed by some stuff about them contacting you about paying that debt ... then "All of this over $100!"
It doesn't matter how little you think this is - is it your money, or is it their money? If you've used their service (and don't have any reason do suggest you did not get a good service in good faith from them), then it's theirs, so just pay it already.
If this were some other big corporation (I don't know, let's say Sony or Microsoft, depending on which way you lean) who owed _you_ $100, would you think it was just a small amount of cash or would you be demanding they pay up immediately what was rightfully yours/stolen from you etc?
Just asking.
Who are these Comcast people you're talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-23 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

...we're Xfinity. Come on, let's sing the Xfinity theme song! It's fun for you! It's fun for me! Everybody do... so you're not buying it, eh? You say we're the same damned service with no quantifiable differences except a different logo and higher monthly bills? Well damn, does that mean you're going to rectally ream us out in court still?
These guys deserve each other by sk999 · 2011-04-23 10:54 · Score: 1

Comcast is the biggest source of junk mail (paper) that I receive. Guess that's what happens when you are in Comcast territory and not a customer.
Collection agencies are the biggest source of unwanted calls on my phone. It's a wrong number - they're after someone else. Do you think these guys would figure it out and correct their records? Of course not.
Go for it! Sue that pants off each other! Next stop - Chapter 7. Well, I can dream.
1. Re:These guys deserve each other by seanvaandering · 2011-04-23 13:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, because they assume that it is the right number and your probably the people they are looking for; your just not admitting it.
  
  I had a collection agency almost a decade ago now actually call my inlaws and say "I'm looking for Sean Vaandering, i'm actually an old relative of his and just looking for his current phone number so I can call him up and wish him a happy birthday and send this present to him? Did you happen to have his current phone number?"
  
  Oh that was brilliant. Here I am, unlisted number and they come calling one day and i'm racking my brains on how the hell did they all of a sudden get my phone number!? Then my wife talks to her mom that evening and she admits that someone called earlier today asking for our phone number and wanting to ship us a gift. Thanks mother-in-law! Appreciate that. Needless to say, we settled that debt, but we were so damn close to 7 years, that it literally would have dropped off and became unreported on my credit report and a noncollectable debt. I actually had someone who used to work at a collections agency tell me in confidence that I shouldn't pay it back because once the debt falls off your credit report, the collection agency legally cannot collect it and cannot enforce any legal action against you to collect it.
  
  That little act cost me 7 more years of low credit score because once I actually paid it, the collection agency updated my credit report stating the R9 was paid in full - but that now means the R9 remains on my file for ANOTHER 7 years, needless to say I paid dearly when I financed a car I absolutely needed at the time (new baby, taking the bus was not in the cards).
  
  Today, the bank who originally sent the file to the collection agency over 15 years ago now just sent me another mailing asking me to sign up for a pre-approved Platinum $10,000 credit card. Please. Never ever in a thousand years, and i'd love to be able to blast someone there for sending me this crap, but alas, I don't want to blow a hole through some front line lackey, for something that happened probably when he was in diapers. Things are different today, and it was a very long and expensive lesson on collection agencies, but the moral of this story is:
  
  Do not fuck with collection agencies, they are paid for one thing and one thing only: To collect unpaid debt at any cost.
  
  Pay your bills on time and every time - especially if the company updates your credit report. It really is that simple. Not paying at all should NEVER EVER be an option your considering.
The enemy of my enemy . . . by MarkvW · 2011-04-23 11:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I will never patronize Comcast (ATT, Xfinity, or whatever) unless I have absolutely no choice. They try to get a monopoly and then they exploit it (by jacking up prices) for all they are worth.
Support your municipal cable company!
1. Re:The enemy of my enemy . . . by FLEABttn · 2011-04-23 12:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Support your municipal cable company!
  Who? No, really, who is that? I have Comcast and...Comcast. I opted for neither.
Not surprised by headhot · 2011-04-23 11:08 · Score: 2

Comcast is notoriously slow to pay its vendors. If it weren't for return business I'm sure the majority would love to sue them. This vendor probably lost a contract, and doesn't want to wait the normal amount of time to get paid.
Re:Trouble by TaoPhoenix · 2011-04-23 11:46 · Score: 1

Not necessarily trouble - it could be arrogance.
There's a trend going on lately that says "Aggression Wins", in that some entity that makes aggressive moves either wins or "cancels" with no penalty, thus rewarding aggression.
Fun Fact: One of the Anniversary Editions of Stratego changed the rules from either "two equal pieces destroy each other" or even "defensive piece wins" (I forget) to "in an equal matchup the attacking piece wins". I didn't understand it 10 years ago, but I do now.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:Trouble by The+End+Of+Days · 2011-04-23 12:34 · Score: 1

If by lately you mean since the dawn of time, I agree.
Non issue by Americium · 2011-04-23 18:17 · Score: 1

I'm sure Comcast is spending more than $500,000 just on lawyers. If this 'small' fee, at least in Comcast's eyes, is enough to justify the lawyers costs and media publicity, there's a good chance Comcast is in fact innocent. This of course suppose a logical assessments by the managers.
Nobody to sympathize with here by KingAlanI · 2011-04-23 18:51 · Score: 1

I find it hard to sympathize with either the deadbeats or the thugs to try to get them to cough up

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
machinery of business by 3seas · 2011-04-24 01:50 · Score: 1

It has become common for companies to easily pass on to collection agencies what ever they want, for the persons doing the passing on are just going through the motions of the machinery of their job, totally careless of any facts of or real people. This also extends to credit ratings.
Re:Having dealt with MN collections agencies befor by damn_registrars · 2011-04-24 14:20 · Score: 1

Ask for a number to return their call. If they cannot provide it, hang up.
What do you expect to accomplish with that? If you hang up, they'll just call you again later. If you get a number, you still won't be able to talk to Elvis, because it isn't his number; it belongs to his company and whoever is answering the phone doesn't know who is calling by that name this evening.

For that matter, they will call you at 2AM, which of course is not a time when they answer their own phones. So getting a call back number would not have done you any good because you would have zero chance of getting ahold of the person who called you at 2AM when you do call them back at a time when someone there is answering the phone.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
350000 is pocket change for a fortune 50 company. by zbobet2012 · 2011-04-24 19:33 · Score: 1

Comcast's CEO got payed something like 36 Million $ last year, do you really think they care about some pissant debt collector going after them for 350k? Companies that big (Fortune 50) get sued for that kinda of money 10-15 times a year.
Re:Having dealt with MN collections agencies befor by countertrolling · 2011-04-26 03:11 · Score: 1

You don't have call blocking? You can also turn off the ringer and let the machine pick up.. I don't let the telephone interrupt meal time or my sleep.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Having dealt with MN collections agencies befor by damn_registrars · 2011-04-26 04:47 · Score: 1

I think you missed the historical aspect here; I haven't been pursued by a collections agency in MN for about a decade or more now. I eventually got them off my ass by contacting the insurance company directly, and getting them to re-pay what they un-paid. At that point the bills were no longer overdue, and the collections agency got nothing from me directly.

The worst part though was that I had to deal with two of the three industries that make the MN axis of evil - in this case insurance companies and collections agencies (the third is private impound lots) - but at least I didn't end up having to declare bankruptcy, which would have been the only way I could have settled those several thousand dollars worth of medical bills.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.