Slashdot Mirror


Scammers Lower Comcast Bills, Get Jail Time

An anonymous reader writes with news about a scam with a twist. The scammers purchased login details to internal Comcast systems from an employee using them to lower the bills of Comcast customers, for a price. "Alston Buchanan, the mastermind of a two-man scam to lower the bills of Comcast customers for a price, pleaded guilty last week and awaits sentencing. His accomplice, Richard Justin Spraggins, who also pleaded guilty in February, will serve 11-23 months in prison and pay Comcast $66,825. Their operation purportedly cost Comcast $2.4 million, and Comcast claims that the loss has forced them to raise the rates on all their customers. However, the allegedly huge financial loss went undetected until a Comcast customer reported his/her suspicions to Comcast customer service."

24 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Something smells fishy here by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His accomplice, Richard Justin Spraggins, who also pleaded guilty in February, will serve 11-23 months in prison and pay Comcast $66,825. Their operation purportedly cost Comcast $2.4 million, and Comcast claims that the loss has forced them to raise the rates on all their customers. However, the allegedly huge financial loss went undetected until a Comcast customer reported his/her suspicions to Comcast customer service."

    So supposedly they lost $2.4 million yet the fine for one accomplice is is only $66,825??? And of course Comcast uses this incident as an excuse to raise the price on everyone including the fool that reported it... I guess the old adage "no good deed goes unpunished" applies here.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    1. Re:Something smells fishy here by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the guy who did the internal investigation and lawyer costs... 2.4 million. I guess they're claiming that they don't know which discounted rates were legit and which were purchased so they removed the discount backdoor from the system. that's a bit fishy if they had used it for discounting feature for people who had suffered from service outages etc...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Something smells fishy here by gsslay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they lost $2.4 million yet the fine for one accomplice is is only $66,825???

      You want to know the definition of pointless? Fining someone more money than they actually possess. You could demand $2.4 million if it makes you feel better, but you ain't getting it.

      "the fool that reported it"

      Some of us might like to think of "the fool" as "the honest individual". I guess it depends on the quality of your moral compass.

    3. Re:Something smells fishy here by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When dealing with Comcast my moral compass doesn't read accurately because of all of their bullshit.

    4. Re:Something smells fishy here by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently you've never been to court. The judge sure as hell doesn't care how much money you have or if you'll ever be able to repay it. I've had a large settlement against a guy since the early 90s (he broke into my house while drunk and destroyed everything I owned at the time.) He sends me about $50/yr because, even 20yrs later he's still a looser and in and out of jail. The only reason he sends me anything is because he's basically constantly on parole and they make it a condition. I could sue him, but that would be an exercise in futility and cost me thousands. But, the point is, when he lost the original case, the judge had no problem fining him for the actual damages, even though there was basically never a way for him to pay it off unless he won the lottery.

    5. Re:Something smells fishy here by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      He could also die and have a huge insurance policy. If he did it right, Charliemopps would be first in line before his children & wife, credit cards, etc.

      Unlikely. But unless things have changed, no one but the beneficiary can touch a dime of life insurance money.

    6. Re:Something smells fishy here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The risk/reward ratio of doing this would be lower than traditional investments. Otherwise you'd see rich people "Taming the Shrew" all the time in exchange for a percentage of the poor person's future earnings.

  2. Forced them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Forced them to raise the rates on all their customers"

    Literally everything forces them to raise their rates.

    1. Re:Forced them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Literally everything forces them to raise their rates.

      Damn... You just forced them again with your comment! STOP!!!!

    2. Re:Forced them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      these lucky 6000 customers were probably paying what they **would have been paying** had government regulation still existed with regards to cable tv rates. deregulation is not necessarily a good thing, especially in areas where there is virtually zero built-in competition for wireline coax-delivered services.

    3. Re:Forced them by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Ahhh, takes me back to the days when we would just climb the pole and hook ourselves up. It would take 6 months or so till we got a postcard saying that we had cable and we should pay for it or they would unhook it. Then it would take another 6 months for them to unhook it. Mind you , this was LONG before the days of internet. Showtime could be had if someone stole an inline dongle, hooked right up between the coax and t.v. We didnt even necessarily need a cable box if the t.v. had individual tuning for each channel. Just tune in your favorite channels and there it was. Cable boxes had an on/off switch and a rotary knob to select channels.
      Makes me recall that FOX used to have at least one nude scene a night on t.v. ....damn Im old....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    4. Re:Forced them by Drethon · · Score: 2

      "Record profits forced them to raise the rates on all their customers", next?

  3. Pretty blatant. by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    Customers were not charged retroactively for the discounted amounts, but their bills were "corrected on a moving-forward basis."

    Well, of course, otherwise they will lose this great excuse for a price hike.

    Also, unless their billing system is completely ridiculous, an employee account would only be able to switch users to a lower existing plan (e.g. some sort of concession), and I doubt that even their most discounted plans lose money. In the end, they claim to have lost 2.4 million (not clear if it is in less than a year) out of 16 billion annual revenue - so, what is it, a 0.015% price increase? But anyway this is Comcast...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Pretty blatant. by mooingyak · · Score: 2

      Customers were not charged retroactively for the discounted amounts, but their bills were "corrected on a moving-forward basis."

      This part doesn't make sense to me, obviously these customers were just as active in defrauding Comcast, they should be required to pay the money they owe at a minimum, criminal charges seems more appropriate. Why play favorites? They're equally guilty as the perpetrators of the scam. Without them, the scam wouldn't have worked.

      Probably because some of them were legitimately handled by the employee in question, and determining actual liability on each and every one of them would be prohibitively expensive. Would be my guess.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  4. Re:Comcast are greedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    His entire point was that you don't have to blindy pay Comcast a single cent, there are alternatives. You could even go without television at all without much difficulty. Food prices are rising faster than television rates, and that isn't something that can be avoided nearly as easily.

  5. Small time crooks by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As we know, only small time crooks get jail time.
    Their error was that they didn't operate out of Wall Street.

  6. They timed this crime right by paiute · · Score: 2

    If things continue along their current path, in the not too distant future crimes against Comcast will carry the death penalty.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  7. A brief message from Comcast by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  8. Re:Irrelevant??? by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not justifying the theft, asshat. I'm pointing out that that its such a tiny blip in their expenses that it doesn't justify an across the board price increase.

    For example... lets say I own a sandwich shop. And one day, my father comes to visit my sandwich shop and I give him a free sandwich. That means my shop made less money per sandwich sold then it would have if I had made my father pay for his sandwich.

    Will I now have to increase prices on all my sandwiches to cover this expense?

    Obviously fucking not.

    Thank you for arriving on the same page I was reading from. I am NOT justifying the theft. I am saying rather that Comcast has billions in revenue... 2.4 million lost here or there spread across the whole subscriber base wouldn't add so much as a PENNY to the cost of the average user.

    Not one fucking cent.

    So comcast on that note can blow it directly out their ass. Were they robbed? Yes. Is that bad? Yes. Do I approve of robbery? No. Do I think Comcast is a terrible company that should get ripped apart why wolves? Yes. Will I release those wolves on it to do just that? No. Will I clap and giggle should that happen? Yes.

    Just what is, my bucko.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. Comcost lost money, eh? by J'raxis · · Score: 2

    In other news, Comcast announced record profits today. First-quarter earnings up thirty percent.

  10. the base rate IS regulated by the LFA government by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    The basic cable rate IS set by the government agency that issues the franchise (legally forced monopoly). That's known as the LFA. Until 1996-1999, the FCC mostly set that rate, now it's primarily set by the LFA.

    During the period of double regulation, 1992-1999, rates increased at 5.6% per year. Once the FCC stepped aside, that was reduced to 4.6%.

    So knowing that having Washington bureaucrats set rates increases them, what reduces rates? Rates are 22%-30% lower in areas with competition.

  11. I have no problem with this by neminem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I read the title, I was like, holy crap, someone got sent to jail for tricking Comcast into giving them a lower rate? That's a new low.

    But no, after reading the whole description - while I have absolutely no sympathy for Comcast whatsoever, that definitely sounds like a legitimate crime that deserves jail time, even if the victims of the crime are also scum who deserve getting ripped off.

  12. Re:Comcast may be blocking slashdot because of thi by ruir · · Score: 2

    Excellent comment, thank you. I too lost access to slashdot today for some time...

  13. Why is cable still usually a monopoly? by kenj0418 · · Score: 2

    Comcast claims that the loss has forced them to raise the rates on all their customers

    And that is how you know you are dealing with a monopoly. If there was actual competition, then it would be hurting only their shareholders as they'd be forced to keep their prices at competitive, market levels.