Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording
An anonymous reader writes In yet another example of the quality of Comcast's customer service, a story surfaced today of a Comcast customer who was over-charged for a service that was never provided. At first, the consumer seemed to be on the losing end of a customer service conversation, with Comcast insisting that the charges were fair. But then, the consumer whipped out a recording of a previous conversation that he had with another Comcast representative in which not only was the consumer promised that he wouldn't be charged for services not rendered, but the reason why was explained. Suddenly Comcast conceded, and the fees were dropped. But most telling of all, the Comcast rep implied that she only dropped them because he had taped his previous interaction with Comcast customer service.
I wish I had recordings of every conversation that I've ever had with AT&T, the USPS, and the landlord I once had in Philadelphia. Lifehacker posted last year a few tips on the practicality of recording phone calls, using Google Voice, a VoIP service, or a dedicated app. Can anyone update their advice by recommending a good Android app (or iOS, for that matter) designed specifically to record sales and service calls, complete with automated notice?
In my state, only one party needs to be aware of a recorded conversation, and it's perfectly fine for that to be the person doing the recording.
And, recording or not, they'll soon just start ditching "troublemaking" customers, like the hospitals do.
Windows: Audacity with a device to plug into your phone line like this one at RadioShack 43-1237
Android: Some phones have this ability like the Samsung Galaxy S3 but it's disabled. For other phones, it's a crapshoot. Try CallRecorder http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1441643
Don't talk about your fraud on the record... It's not at all surprising that Comcast would do this, the fact that their alignment is apathetic/evil is well known; but it's pretty surprising how open they are about it.
Invoice fraud is a totally classic con; but it depends in part on knowing when not to push it. The target catches on and is angy; do you want to cause a scene and risk discovery or just offer an insincere apology, drop the issue, and move on to the next target? Especially given Comcast's current less-than-winning PR situation (you know it's bad when your cancellation procedure has an AOL guy driven to despair...) there is no way this call would be worth the risk, even if they'd made all the charges stick. Shut up, appease the noisy guy, and cram some befuddled old people or something.
I suspect that the odds of actually being charged are basically zero; but billing 'errors' made in very, very, questionable good faith start to look a lot like mail fraud if they aren't quite isolated incidents(especially given how added charges always seem to be more common than accidentally omitted charges).
In other states, like Oregon, part of the recording must include a question about whether it is okay to record, and the answer. So the question is asked twice.
Does anyone know whether it is okay to record conversations when the other party's recorded message says the call is recorded? Washington state and Oregon are 2 about which I'd like to know, with links to the law.
It's crazy that each state has its own laws! It's crazy that Comcast is allowed to be so abusive. CenturyLink, the phone company in Oregon and SW Washington state, is also hostile to customers, in my experience. We are becoming a country where the rich can do anything they want to everyone else.
Is the answer always to record? If legal, I think yes.
I do stakeholder and user interviews, and may not be able to predict what telephony equipment I'll find at a site.
I realize you're asking for a smartphone or VOIP app, but what I've come to rely on is the JK Audio QuickTap: http://www.jkaudio.com/quickta... - it can record both sides from virtually ANY corded-handset phone. Sounds great, it's a passive device, so no batteries, no AC, it's little and comes with the adapters you need for a pocket recorder (like the Olympus recorder I use, but works with a PC/Mac input as well...).
This works nearly anyplace, and sounds great. Whatever you do, DO NOT try the Radio Shack device for cheap cheap that claims to do the same thing. The Radio Shack device has a little switch on it. Position 1 is "Suck", and Position 2 is "Suck Differently". You buy this thing and you've hosed yourself.
Full disc: I don't sell these, have no ownership, employment or other stake with JK Audio: they just make tools that work when I desperately need 'em to, and I love 'em.
Redditor posts this, Arstechnica picks it up, then Slashdot gets it and fails to reference reddit? Is that because they compete or am I just overlooking something?
Just about every call I've ever made to a sufficiently-large company has started with the automated disclaimer that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance".
Well then, thank you. They just gave permission. This call may be recorded. Thanks, Comcast!
Is it just because of "wiretap" laws? It seems like it would be a pretty trivial feature to add to smartphones. It's also easy to see how it could be very easily enhanced beyond simple audio files -- automated or selective recording of only some calls ("Answer and record", "record all calls" flag in contacts, speech-to-text, and so on).
Recording calls USED to be very easy -- $5 telephone pickup from Radio Shaft and a cassette recorder.
Correct! So what if I placed an on-demand playback of "This call may be recorded for future review". How many CSRs at the other end would drop my call?
Life is not for the lazy.
"Over-charged" in this context implies that the bill was too high -- like when your waiter "charges" you for an extra cola that you didn't actually order. When you point it out to him, he goes back and prints a new check before you pay him. What mega-corporations like Comcast will do is simply ding your credit card on file without authorization for a product or service which was neither requested nor provided. Taking something which you aren't entitled to is theft, so let's call this what is: THEFT.
Just yesterday I had to engage with my ISP's support folks to resolve a network speed issue. Fortunately, I had saved the chat sessions from when the same problem occurred two years ago. I ended up pasting part of a previous chat session into the current chat session so that the CSR could see what worked last time. Result: problem resolved in hours, not days
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
I don't think Android lets you record phone calls properly. I know there are a few apps that turn on speaker phone and then record all audio from the microphone, but the audio quality sucks. As far as I know, Android never gives access to the audio stream to userland space at all. It's one thing I dislike about it, I've wanted a good call recorder myself on Android, too. My old Nokia N900, running Maemo, does let you record both incoming and outgoing sound and gives you proper recording.
Use your smart phone. It's got a recording app that works when you call people, and the quality of my recordings have been surprisingly good. I usually use it to record sessions with clients so I can review them later, but it would work in a pinch for CS calls.
With any call to a place of business, credit card company, whatever - always start with the agent by telling them that you are recording the call (even if you don't - it covers your bases) - all of a sudden their attitudes will be very different and of course if you are recording then there is no question on legality. Works every time I've done it.
I've been using a call recorder app for about half a year now; great not only for rare cases like these, but also for replaying a conversation to get a name or phonenumber or some other detail you've forgotten.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Natural monopolies should never be for profit. This is what happens when you pay lip service to free market capitalism and fail to regulate. You get natural monoploies acting as either true monopolies or oligopolies.
If you every household who uses comcast turn off their service and spends the 150 a month on Comcast stock even if the stock stayed steady it would take 2 years to buy them out. Then we put Nader, Lessig, et. al on the board and FIRE EVERY FUCKING EXEC AND MANAGER IN THAT FUCK HOLE.
Nope. If you live in a two-party consent state (which is where these notifications could potentially very seriously matter) that satisfies the requirement that all parties be aware that the company you're calling is recording, but does not satisfy the requirement that all parties have been notified that you are recording. Scrutinize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... carefully to determine under which jurisdiction you live, because that's what matters.
Are you sure of the legal basis of this? Or is it just logic?
Because in my state, the wording means their recording is legal but mine is not. So that makes me think people should not rely on logic for legal matters.
Correct! So what if I placed an on-demand playback of "This call may be recorded for future review". How many CSRs at the other end would drop my call?
In reality, probably none. The CSR likely doesn't have the authority to simply not give you support for that reason. That would be the beauty of using something like that.
Correct! So what if I placed an on-demand playback of "This call may be recorded for future review". How many CSRs at the other end would drop my call?
You're missing the point. If they give notice that "this call may be recorded" then that covers *both* parties. Either one of you may record legally at that point.
I live in a "one-party" state (TN) and used to live in another (IN) so it's never been a concern to me if I wanted to record, and I definitely have. One of my best calls was with a idiot Comcast rep - surprise, surprise.
Do you have ESP?
Remember that in many states, NSA is the only entity permitted to record a phone conversation without informing and consent (and that probably wouldn't be legal either if the US didn't exert its sovereign immunity). This is why your Comcast call always begins with, "your conversation may be recorded for quality control purposes." They're controlling the quality of their profits, is what it is.
One concrete example I recall came from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. When John Goodman recorded his conversation with her from Maryland, it was okay, but if she'd been two miles away in DC, or ten miles away in Virginia, recording the call with Monica would have been a felony. Don't think for a moment that Comcast will fail to use that as leverage against you.
Regulated utilities are allowed to make profits. But it's regulated.
That's the problem. Comcast (and other cable cos) are operating in a natural monopoly market area, but lack any and all related regulations that we force companies operating public utilities to operate under. They are being allowed to act as if its a free market, while at the same time enjoying a quasi-utility type natural monopoly.
They should either be
a) forced to operate as regulated public utilities
b) forced into actual competition
Either one would largely fix the current situation.
Right now they are neither, and are enjoying benefits of both A and B, with non of the consequences of either.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
But it's not a monopoly. Your cable company has a franchise agreement with the local government. They license them to be the only cable operator in the area in exchange for control over the fees and rates the cable company can charge. They do the same thing for Gas, electricity, etc... If you don't like the deal, vote. Local Governments switch cable and telecom companies all the time.
In order for that to work, people would have to go without their football & oprah for awhile.
Not gonna happen.
Is this entirely true?
If they say "this call may be recorded for quality assurance", I'd think that's their consent to my recording, after all, these recordings are attempts to assure the quality of customer service.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
True! "This call may be recorded..." is a bi-directional statement. I love the logic.
Also, if in doubt, as you hear the 'statement', repeat their exact words into the phone.
And, if in further doubt, when a real human comes on the line, ask, "Do you agree?" If the answer is a spluttering 'Yes' then.... or if 'No' then say "Please review your recording of his call, and I'll wait on the line as you do that." And, listen to what happens; It's likely to be hilarious! ;-)
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
"Comcrap screwed me again. I couldn't get them to reverse this charge."
"Why do you do business with them anyway? You regularly call them things like 'comcrap' and are complaining about them constantly. Why not move to another carrier?"
"I'd love to, but they're the only game in my part of town."
(after a few minutes of research) "No they aren't, you have Qwest Fiber available in your area. Why not switch to that?"
"Well, Comcrap is faster. They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)."
"Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes."
"30 is twice as fast."
"That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant."
"I've had comcrap for six years."
"And you've HATED every minute of it! You haven't called the company by its real name in all of that time! You're regularly telling me how they promise a discount and then don't give it to you, or charge you for stuff you haven't ordered, and how you can't get any charges reversed. What the hell?"
"I got a good price on the bundle."
"You never answer your home phone! And you only watch stuff you've illegally downloaded."
"I don't like commercials."
"Ok..." (deep breath) "So, let's summarize. Of the three services you're currently paying for, you only commonly use one of them (internet), so despite the great deal you got on the bundle, any cost you're paying over and above internet is A WASTE OF MONEY. And the company regularly busts your chops. Yet you stay with them. Are you an abused spouse?"
This is only slightly paraphrased from a real conversation. The conclusion I've drawn from speaking to comcast subscribers is that some stick with it under the impression that they're "getting a deal", and some because they have been sold on the idea that "it's the only game in town", but I suspect that some people just like to have something to complain about.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Are you sure of the legal basis of this? Or is it just logic?
Just logic, and yeah, I know, law != logic.
Interestingly, though, Washington (one of the 10(ish) two-party states) specifically addresses and allows the loophole I mention.
Here is an article from Lifehacker on how to record incoming calls on your smart phone. It looks hard unless you use Google Voice, and GV only records incoming calls (fear of grey areas around wiretapping laws it seems). Free Android apps seem to record all sound coming in the mic and end up being lower quality recordings.
> Because in my state, the wording means their recording is legal but mine is not.
I've seen other internet commentators make similar statements. But I've yet to see some legal authority to back it up. Can you cite a case where someone made a recording under those conditions and got in trouble for it? Or a statement by a judge on the matter? Maybe even just a statement by an unbiased lawyer (as in one who wasn't currently representing someone with an interest in the law being interpreted either way)?
Surely there's some legal principle (with a latin name that translates to something like "what's good for the goose is good for the gander") that automatically gives you the right to record the call if they claim it themselves.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Generally no; them providing notice to you that they're recording isn't the same as you providing notice to them that you're also recording.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Gas, electricity, etc. are typically regulated monopolies though, while Comcast isn't. A company like Georgia Power can't raise its rates without legislative permission, while Comcast can set its rates to whatever it wants.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well if the message is literally saying, "This call may be recorded for quality assurance," then couldn't you take that as permission. It doesn't specify who should do the recording, it just says it "may be recorded". Like, "Yes, you may go to the bathroom. This phone call also may be recorded."
It's not illegal to say you're recording when you're not (you could have lost the recording). So just tell the Comcast person on the other side you're recording, if they object ask why what are they afraid of. I imagine the conversation will take a different direction when they "know" they are being recorded. And enough people will actually record that they likely won't dare assume you're bluffing.
The statement of permission is that "this call may be recorded", not "we may record this call". The statement does not distinguish the party permitted to make the recording. IANAL, but that is plain English.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
I was helping my girlfriend migrate from her hideous DSL to Comcast...which I've had pretty good service from over the years, but thankfully haven't really needed to deal with customer service.
So, I bought a modem and a wireless router. Soon as the guy had the modem connected and working, I went about configuring the router and getting wifi working, while he installed cable to the TV in the bedroom.
After he left, we looked at the receipt, and the guy charged us for setting up Wifi. When we called Comcast we were told that he charged us because he left with working Wifi. It is one of the most ridiculous statements we ever heard. But, thankfully, when we went into our local Comcast service center, we found someone willing to think, and we were given months of free service to neutralize the cost.
Still...it's stunning that they even thought there was an explanation here beyond just crookedness. If you have the ability to wire up a house, you have enough use of your faculties to know that you did nothing specific to a Wifi installation.
Lots and lots of whining about Comcast and how bad they are. But they are complete angels compared to the turd of a telco known as Telus. Telus sucks. It's true.
I think most anyone has experienced bad customer service. Much of customer service today is about stroking the customer and putting out a line of BS to keep them. Its never about addressing real issues or improving service. If that was the case customer service would have improved 10 fold by now. Part of the issue is the BS teaser services companies like Comcast dangle in the face of customers. Teaser rates are basically there to keep numbers up but it really does little to help a company. Mainly because companies end up spending too much of BS customer service and much less on hiring actually people to provide good service in the first place. It reminds me a lot of AT&T which spends millions on promotions and ads and does little to really improve service to a point that people would actually pay full price for their service. Comcast is certainly not alone in bad customer service, no not in the least. I pretty much expect that if I have issue with a product or service my real options are to do honest negative reviews, and simply not use that product or service again. The people who spend time with long conversations arguing to a customer service reps are more needy then actually doing themselves good. You should not have to spend hours diagnosing a new product that does not work, or put up with lousy service because your getting a deal. If a company cannot provide good customer service. Then they probably are lacking in other areas of the company too. I live in a small town which basically has only Comcast as a reliable ISP broadband provider. For me its been stable and fast and have had very little complaints. I cancelled my TV portion of my Comcast service years ago and never plan on ever using their TV service again. Again, Comcast is not alone as I found the satellite TV services to be just as bad in providing good customer service. We have become a society bent on not paying a lot for many products and services we buy. But the end results are poor support, bad customer services and even diminished product quality.
Any options for those of us who aren't running Android? Any workarounds or recommendations? This is a great idea, I just haven't read any suggestions or tips on this thread about how to record using iPhone or Windows phone.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Depends on how you interpret the semantics of their statement/recording.
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance" is vague. That may be their notification to me that they are recording the call, but it could also be interpreted as "you may record this call for quality assurance". Either interpretation fits the statement of "This call may be recorded for quality assurance".
So why is nobody investigating this company. Or is this just the way business is done?
them providing notice to you that they're recording isn't the same as you providing notice to them that you're also recording.
The common phrasing is "This call may be recorded". When used as a reply to "May I record this call?" it sure sounds like it'd mean "You have our permission to record this call".
Every time the Comcast/XFinity truck is around, some red shirted sob comes to the door and knocks.
My response is "Comcast! XFinity! No fucking way!"
They scurry off like a scared rat.
ATT Uverse hasn't come by but I'd give them the same treatment.
It's sucks that if I want more than 1.5Mbps/0.25Mbps I have to get Uverse shit or Comcast shit.
We have really fucked broadband service in the US of backward A.
They will simply say that it is against their policy to talk to anyone who is recording the conversation. Of course it is also in their policy that they will record the conversation on their end.
One of the things I first checked into when I moved to Arizona. They are single party consent, and since I'm the one recording my call, I don't have to say a blasted thing to anybody on the other line--total win!
While I haven't worked for a large number of companies(only 4), I can say that corporate culture defines these types of interactions more than any executive degree ever will. When you have a company that is solely focused on profits, you will always end up with situations like this. Yet, when you have a company that values their customers, things like this will very rarely happen. The last company & the one I currently work for are both for profit(one public & one private), but put their customers first over that profit. This happens from the CEO down to those who are the face of the company people by interacting with the "customers". The attitude of service to the customer is ingrained as a part of the culture, and any deviation from this is unacceptable.
Contrast that with the companies I worked early on(a telemarketer & a "small loan" company) and it's night & day. These 2 companies only wanted profit, at the cost of mistreatment of their customers & employees. The attitude was to treat everybody suspiciously, and employment metrics were based on how much money you made the company. I now find it funny to see the excuses they used to justify the "good" work they were engaged in.
This is why people like to shop at mom & pop stores, which usually cost more, than Wal-Mart. The owners of these small shops care more about their customers & making sure that they leave a good impression, than they do the immediate sale. Now this might not be for truly altruistic purposes, as mom & pop shops live and die by word of mouth, but that doesn't mean it isn't appreciated.
you have Qwest Fiber available in your area. Why not switch to that?
Would you be saying something similar if it were a choice between 30 Mbps Comcast and 0.768 Mbps DSL? Or a choice between Comcast with a 300 GB/mo cap and satellite with a 10 GB/mo cap?
so despite the great deal you got on the bundle, any cost you're paying over and above internet is A WASTE OF MONEY.
Unless, as others have pointed out, Comcast offers Internet for $60 per month or Internet + TV for $55 per month. This actually does happen: see previous comments by AC, mrchaotica, and sandytaru.
I use https://play.google.com/store/...
Good audio quality, you can choose to record all conversations by default (and then decide which ones to keep), etc.
It doesn't have an automated notice, but you can always say it yourself :-)
Wait, if they just need provide *notice* (not ask you) and that's enough to make their recording legal, then you should be able to do the same. Just notify them that you are recording and that's it. Both parties are notified, both can record as they please.
Where I live (Virginia) it is legal to record any conversation as long as one party in the recording is aware. This is NOT TRUE EVERYWHERE! Know the law before you start recording stuff as you might end up in more hot water than the charges you could hope to pin on the target.
Having said that, it is ridiculously simple to use the built in voice recorder/voice memos app and speakerphone mode on an iPhone or other iOS device. Voice recorder/voice memos stays resident and active once you start recording so hitting the home button and switching to the phone does not interrupt recording. I have used this method many times, since the iPhone 3/3GS at least.
I put both app names in here because I believe the app name changed between iOS versions, but both work the same. Records CD quality, 16-bit, 44kHz mono.
Are you sure of the legal basis of this? Or is it just logic?
Because in my state, the wording means their recording is legal but mine is not. So that makes me think people should not rely on logic for legal matters.
No, you should rely on logic for legal matters, but not rely on politicians to use logic when writing a law. There is a distinct difference in the authorship of stupid and the interpretation of stupid!
Are you sure? 12 states have laws requiring both (all) parties consent to a recording. This means party A agrees the conversation can be recorded, and party B agrees the conversation can be recorded. The requirement of mutual consent would seem to exclude your interpretation. i.e. Their notice is not just getting your consent to have the conversation recorded (just hang up if you don't approve), but also their announcement that they are consenting to have the conversation recorded.
The remaining states, recording is legal if one party consents. So you can record it if you want regardless of what the other party says.
(Your interpretation also violates reciprocity and consideration, making me think a recording under those terms would be thrown out in court.)
Have we become a country so corrupt that we now have to record *everything* in order to have even a modicum of justice? You can't get Comcast to not perform mail fraud unless you have a recording of them saying they won't do it, they only way to NOT have a police officer beat you to death for "resisting arrest" is to record it.
Funny that if I personally were to turn the tables on Comcast and send them a bill for services I didn't perform, they'd have the authorities on me in an instant, and try and have me sent to jail.
But there's no way to arrest Comcast for doing the exact same thing, even though they are legally a "person" and can even claim religious rights. Comcast is a sociopathic person who flagrantly disregards the law because they can get away with it.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
http://www.callmynah.com/
it is a handset, that connects to yours as a headset.
it records the call....
Or they can just say: "well in that case you will have to go through our legal department"
And you are blackholed from getting anything done with that company.
People don't always realize it when they hear it, but nearly all customer call centers give explicit permission to record the phone calls when they announce something like "This call may be recorded for quality purposes" at the start of the call. And since they are recordinging it, you can too. So hell ya, use it to your advantage!
Not everywhere, though. I worked at technical service for a US cellphone carrier and I was instructed during training to refuse being recorded. If a customber told me that he was recording the call, I was to insist they turn it off, or I would have to end the call. Curiously, it was one of the very few reasons I was actually allowed to hang up the phone.
You should not rely on logic or the whims of politicians. Just look at the source code and find out what the law says (preferably with the advice of a lawyer).
That's what being a "local monopoly" means. It may be a government-granted monopoly, but it's still a monopoly from our end.
If you every household who uses comcast turn off their service and spends the 150 a month on Comcast stock even if the stock stayed steady it would take 2 years to buy them out.
Their share price doesn't seem to be priced at all reasonably... You just gave some seriously bad advice. Once their revenue stream dries up the share price would plummet which would likely mean they could buy up a company worth nothing sooner. Still horrible advice.
Got my own Morotola Surfboard Xmas 2013. Comcast still charged me every month until I caught it on my August 2014 bill. They credited me the 7.00 per month when I asked them "so how long have you knowingly been billing me for this?"
My last customer service 'interaction' with Comcast involved a rate offered for services when unbundled (not part of one of their phone/internet/cable 'deals')
Navigating their promotion site I found I could get my current package for 15 dollars less per month, I wasn't allowed to select it because I already had it; Calling them I asked for assistance, they insisted it was a bundle price and I couldn't, I explained how I got the idea, they followed the link and agreed; service rep assured me they could fix this but it would take logging a ticket and that they would call me back in a week or less.
A week later, no call back, I call and reference my previous call, they check and tell me it has been fixed; strange, they didn't call, so I asked when they would adjust my billing; what followed is how I believe Comcast treats all of its customers... what was 'fixed' was the website, they logged the back line ticket to the web developers to fix the clearly broken (to them) offer; to confirm I was satisfied the CSR asked me to follow the link and confirm that I was no longer offered the better rate.
I really wish I had recorded both conversations, brilliant and classic ZFG.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Great, now I have to recording all my conversations with service providers to guarantee they will do what they're supposed to? This is going to be a nightmare to manage.
I had a similar situation with Paypal and incorrectly applied bank fees. After speaking with 3 agents all claiming Paypal would absolutely reimburse my fees - and after several days of hearing nothing and calling back - I recorded the 4th. The 5th time I called back and got a firm NOPE - spoke with a supervisor and all was refunded.
Originally I had gotten Pacbell DSL. It was pretty good, and I was quite happy. They dicked around with the connections of their non-static-ip customers (frequently power cycling the routers in the evenings to prevent people from keeping an IP), but eventually I wanted a static IP and that thing was rock-solid. I was even mostly happy with the service (emailed technical support once and found out halfway through the conversation that the guy was my brother's childhood best friend). Then Pacbell got bought out by Southwestern Bell, but they stayed pretty much the same. Then SW Bell was bought out by AT&T, and the dickery started.
I like to pay my bills. No problems with the various companies that take the bills except for one -- AT&T. One May, I paid my bill with the online-bill-pay from my bank. No problem, I had a record that the payment had been accepted and deposited. About a week later, I got a refund check for the exact amount of my bill, and then another bill with the same amount that was now "past due" and a late fee. So.. they sent a refund so they could charge me a fraudulent late fee. I went back and forth for awhile with customer/bill service. The AT&T rep I talked to seemed genuinely puzzled by the whole thing, and she told me she had put a "hold" on the account so it wouldn't get touched while this dispute happened. Later that week the account was "closed" due to non-payment. The best part? When an account is closed in such a manner, it's immediately deleted. I received all my email on that account, and when the payment dispute was resolved, I was not allowed to have it back. I went through the painstaking process of changing the registered email address of all the online sites I had signed up for, and it's when I realized that you should never tie such things to the local telco.
But man, I wish I recorded the phone call at the time where the rep said that I didn't need to worry about the account because it'd been frozen to prevent termination. Never trust the word of anyone on the phone; always get some sort of proof.
Practically speaking you have all the tools available today with your iPhone for FREE!
An iPhone in speaker mode and then your iPhone headset plugged into your MacBook Air (or whatever other iPhone/iPod Touch or other recording device you want.)
So you have your conversation where you have announced you are recording the call, etc. and it is done and in very high quality.
You can get more complicated, expensive and such, but this works every time.
Seems to me when their robot operator tells you your call may be recorded for "quality control purposes," that is all the disclaimer that is needed to record the call yourself, no matter what the state wiretapping laws may be.
Correct. I know that at, for instance, T-Mobile a customer must be the one to hang up, or give explicit instructions that they are finished with the call. Otherwise, the CSR cannot hang up the phone or they risk losing their job. This ended up being an issue for T-Mobile employees in our area because they started getting calls from elderly folks/shut ins who just wanted someone to talk to, and they'd hang on the line for 2-3 hours refusing to hang up. The rep is powerless to hang up if the person on the line hasn't initiated hanging up. Not sure if the same applies to Comcast or not (or if the T-Mobile policy has changed).
If you are stupid enough to be a Comcast customer you deserve to be charged a premium for your stupidity.
Hope is the currency of fools
... all of this who-ha. ... did you file your FCC complaint today?
If you know you can't get your problem resolved through the usual means just hand the issue over to the FCC. Make your problem Comcast's problem!
Natural monopolies should never be for profit.
Wireline services aren't natural monopolies. Anybody watching TV on FiOS or making a phone call on Cable can attest to that.
But ... they are very frequently granted cartel or hegemony status, benefit from all sorts of incumbent protection regulations, and almost certainly feature regulatory capture. These are features of fascism, not monopolies, which is arguably much worse.
Depending on geography, roads may be natural monopolies. Dams on rivers, extraction of resources on a given land, that sort of thing. Water, gas, and electric services are usually granted monopolies, but if they abuse prices enough there's nothing that explicitly prevents a competing water or gas line, other than government interference. In the presence of such regulations, you'll see rainwater collection, solar panels, propane tanks, etc.
There can also be a high barrier to entry that makes competition a poor finance decison. If your whole town is wired for cable it takes a lot of money to go after that market because you have a large investment with a slow initial pay-off. But again, FTTH has been done in competitive markets - there just needs to be billions to back it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Oh but you do and you just don't know it. call the NSA - maybe they can send you a copy.
I don't think Comcast wants to pile on more bad publicity by suing a customer for recording a call that they said was being recorded anyhow.
So if I live in a "one-party consent" state, I can just record without notifying?
It also says California's Supreme Court ruled that if you talked to someone in California (an "all-party consent" state) you needed the CA guy's permission. How can they enforce that? Extradite? Do other states honor that or do they have their own balls?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Listening to a call while they're on it? There are so many analogies here...
Movies: Inception.
Coding: A function calling itself
Cliches: Snake eating its own tail
And oh so many more...
How can anyone pay lip service to free markets by regulating them?
The problem is that government regulates them as monopolies. They create the problem in the first lace by creating the monopoly, then offer to fix the problem by adding regulation. If it were a truly free market, without government sponsored monopolies, regulation wouldn't be nessary.
Look up the history of AT&T, how they were acting like a bully, but when the lawsuits began to have an effect and counter their actions, they begged the government to regulate them as a monopoly. If the government had just said no, they would have been brought to heel within a few years; the market would have worked.
It never ceases to amaze me how often I am amazed at people who cannot grasp this simple concept, that government specialized in correcting problems it created. Even that great social experiment, US alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933, was not ended by repealing the prohibition, but by changing outright prohibition to regulation.
Infuriate left and right
Natural monopolies should never be for profit. This is what happens when you pay lip service to free market capitalism and fail to regulate.
We'd be so much better off if Comcast took all of the money paid out as dividends and put it into bonus checks for management instead.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Besides, would you really want this to be a prevalent feature on smartphones?
Yes. With virtually every other form of electronic communication we have today, we know that it can be (and likely is being) recorded and archived. E-mail, SMS, Facebook messages, video camera footage (without audio), license plate location details through ALPR, credit card usage information, utility usage information through smart meters... heck, even WHO you call and for how long is being recorded by the phone company and shared with law enforcement, no warrant required, since that's "just metadata" recorded by a "pen register" and doesn't fall under wiretap laws.
Now, ask yourself, who benefits from that fact that it's difficult for the average citizen to record their phone calls? And why is it that every entity with any significant power or revenue records their phone calls, and simply informs you of that fact without offering any choice? How exactly does it benefit me that all my interactions with Comcast or AT&T are recorded and kept by them and I have nothing?
Maybe you think there should be more protections for all the other forms of communication and data, but that's not going to happen. And just like it was in the interest of law enforcement for them to be able to record you, but not for you to be able to record them, I think you need to think hard about whether you really want to preserve an illusion of privacy, or actually be able level the playing field.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I currently work in a call center and if you advise me that you are recording this call i simply state i do not authorize the recording. If you still insist you can send all corospondence via written communication. End of call.
But then those new shareholders might start getting a taste of the sweet sweet dividends possible when you're owning an unregulated, monopolistic company that makes ridiculous profits and change their tune.
The easy solution is to not do business with them. I had to call every month for a year due to overcharging for television service I didn't have and "multiple computers" back when they tried that nonsense. I eventually told them I'd had enough and they wouldn't get another penny from me and to cancel my service. I never once saw any kind of credit issue from it though they did try for the next year to get me to reinstate my service.
I haven't used any of their services for over 10 years now and haven't missed it a bit.
You want to change their policies? Speak with your wallet!
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
udachny is a confirmed sock puppet of roman_mir. he believes himself to have too important of a religious mission on slashdot to be constrained by its plainly presented rules, so he uses multiple accounts to give the appearance of being widely accepted here. don't fall for it.
The available public shares would not be enough to gain a controlling stake in the company. Do you think any company would allow that? lol, you must be SMRT
This is NOT to be construed as legal advice and there are clearly some legal issues depending what state you're in and what state you're calling.
I used to use a free conference service that includes recording in combination with google voice on my android. I set up an account on freeconferencecall.com(I don't own any stake in these guys ...just a user). There's a few services out there...look around.
I call my conference number using my android and start the recording. Once the recording starts, then I use the add a call option in my android and use my google voice line to dial in the customer service or whoever I want to record and then hit merge to merge the 2 calls as soon as it connects. I've recorded up to an hour and a half no problem but they say there's a 6hr per call limit. Unlimited calls.
It's a bit of a cludge but I get nice crisp clear recordings that I can download at any time.
There are many:
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=call%20recorder
I use https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.record.my.call . It records all calls by default and then prompts me to ask if I want to save the recording.
Legality in your locality is obviously your problem.
Yeah, until you realize that Qwest's service is actually almost as bad as Comcast. Also, their service actually IS significantly worse.
I had their fiber at my old house and it was great. I ended up upset every time I had to deal with them on the phone, but I generally didn't have any horror stories.
Then I moved about ten minutes north and I wasn't in their fiber area anymore. Turns out they only got fiber to people within a mile or two of downtown. I switched to their DSL, which maxed out at 12 mbps. It was garbage. Netflix was pixelated during evening hours when I normally wanted to watch a movie. Data was slow.
I finally switched back to Comcast because it was the only service available in the city that would get me Netflix in HD. And cancelling Qwest was it's own agony.
As a non-lawyer, I'm going off other posts on this topic from other non-lawyers: They'd just file the case in CA to help ensure CA law was used for case. Also, since the one filing the case is likely to be the guy in CA, it'd be a lot easier for them to file locally. Some sort of Long-Arm statute would likely come into play, and the more restrictive set of laws would be enforced.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
here they gave permission by answering the phone. and i dont have to tell them i am doing it..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The OP asks a rather simple technological restriction, and instead we get a bunch of mis-informed arm chair legal posts, mostly from idiots.
my my, amazing how far Slashdot has fallen.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why isn't call recording a standard built-in feature in all phones? I thought we would have them by now. Are we still leaving in the 1800s? :
I've wondered about this. Could a statement that a call may be recorded for "quality assurance" or the like be interpreted to mean that I, as the customer, also have permission to record the call... you know, to assure that I'm getting the quality of service that I expect?
Freedom must be carefully controlled and regulated. Preferably by a coterie of Three Letter Agencies who nominally report to an elected government, who themselves nominally report to the citizens. However there is a very helpful intervening procedure called "lobbying" and "political contributions" that allow "more important citizens" "access to decision makers".
Therefore don't worry be happy. This is a place you can do business in. If you have money.
And what would you do if they told you they don't want you recoding them for quality assurance?
New apps are broken. One with auto encrypt would be better though. Anyone got one that records to ogg or mp3 and has ecryption?
They don't say "We may record this call for quality assurance", they say "This cal may be recorded for quality assurance purposes". nd as in TFA, the recording certainly did assure the quality of the service for the customer.
At the beginning of your conversation with the CSR, you just ask:
"Do you know that this call is recorded?"
What's so damaging about a customer recording the call? What could possible go wrong as a result?
I believe the general rule is that ambiguities in boiler-plate or standard language are typically resolved against the party saying that. In that case, any reasonable interpretation of the recording should be legally OK.
Note: I'm not a lawyer. If this is a matter of legal importance to you, ask a lawyer.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's nothing natural to prevent competition?
So, you think that I should be free to install my own competing water company, and run a duplicate set of pipes? You do realize that my pipes will have to cross public and likely private property, so I need some sort of authority or at least government permission? That this means that pipes will be used very inefficiently? That there is finite space to run pipes?
If I want to run overhead cables, I will find that there are safety limits on attaching cables to utility poles, and these can be hit by carrying telephone, power, and cable service.
Distribution networks like this are generally natural monopolies.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Whenever I deal with a company that says they are recording, I always reply that I do not consent to being recorded. I've never had anyone continue the conversation at that point. They usually hang up, or say they will call me back from a non-recorded line.
You know, I was just reading Florida's statute. It sounds to me like the NSA is in pretty direct violation of Florida's laws regarding the interception of telephone and other electronic communications, but I'm betting thrice married Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is to busy "defending traditional marriage" to have time for taking on the NSA...Oh wait, she's asking the court to put the cases on hold pending a SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality, so she does have time to go after them.
I believe in California it is still a felony to record anyone anywhere with a recording device while intentionally doing so without the subject's knowledge.
...as we say here in the UK. I have habitually recorded phone conversations with Utilities in particular - because they simply hold the phone away from their ears whilst you are talking, maybe take a drag on their cigarette, have a sip of coffee - then hang up. It's amazing the focus that comes to bear on your complaint when I announce they are welcome to drone on about the company Mission statement as it's all being recorded for the County Court case that's coming their way.
Recording the conversation is a great leveller and I found it very easy to do with a speakerphone and a "voice recorder" utility on an old mobile phone. Additionally, their outlook changes when you *say* you are recording the call - whether you are or not - who is to know? !!
I was in a terrible situation this last February where I was very wronged by my job and then brought into several meetings with my "manager" and the head of HR where I was bullied so badly that I began to record our conversation. Everyone involved knew how wrong I was being treated. I did get to record them firing me for recording our conversation, but I also have not worked in half a year and have been dead broke since. So, I can prove how badly I was mistreated and that I was fired for starting to record the way they were treating me, but it doesn't really do me any good either. The recording of all HR meetings or meetings with managers at work should be mandatory. Imagine how different our work environments would be.
"What's so damaging about a customer recording the call? What could possible go wrong as a result?"
The company could be caught red-handed telling fibs to customers and have it end up on Youtube.
Are you sure? 12 states have laws requiring both (all) parties consent to a recording.
The problem is that these laws aren't consistent with rights arising under the 9th Amendment. The legal profession is unlikely to raise this point any time soon, since there are other rights (such as the right to ethical government, and ethical practice of law) they would just as soon the public not be thinking about.
No then it just takes twice as much money or twice as long.
No shit you fucking moron. Then you buy more stock until you own the means of distribution and have a customer owner utility.
I know for a fact you are wrong. We have a WISP provider in a rural area. We put in a permit application to run fiber from the wireless link to the neighborhood. As soon as we we threatening competition Comcast came in and put up wires after us asking for 30 years. The dicks also stopped at our property line and refused to run cable to our 4 rental houses. Yes it could have been a coincidence but I doubt it.
Natural monopolies exist for a reason. There is no reason to have six sets up copper on a pole delivering the same shit. Your argument that AT&T used regulation to prevent being sued has nothing to do with natural monopolies or regulation, it is simply and example of talented lawyers finding a solution to their problem within the greater scope of "rent seeking behavior." It was easier to limit their liability through regulation than being a better business.
As to " government specialized in correcting problems it created " that is the only possible logical approach to anything. The assumption that the free market or the government can do anything perfectly the first time and that it shouldn't continuously improved is insane. It is a fallacy that government is anything different than any other human endeavor, a pile of shit that stinks and need to be cleaned from time to time. The only reason the free market and business are seen as better is because you are unaware of the vast majority of cluster fucks that occur in business, you only become aware of success by its nature and so you have an unrealistic view of the market.
They are useless bags of shit. My cousin works for an interactive TV system. They have had 3 deals fall through with Comcast because of incompetence of Comcast side. They wanted to make the deal, it would have made everyone money but Comcast was incapable of getting their shit together 3 time in a row.
And then their rates would go up they would get bundled and they would vote in a new board of directors in the next proxy vote.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/c...
Institutional is not insider.
This is my assumsion is , If u call a place & it tells you by automatic machine messaging that you are being recorded for quality assurance like alot of 1888, or 1800 or billing or customer service lines do then the assumsion is the buissness automatic machines telling you that your being recorded is the same as both parties knowing that your being recorded for quality assurances or the buisness if one person is needed to be informed the buisness is breaking a law so by this meaning & interp one should be able to record the convesation without even mentioning that you are recording them if your recorded phone call includes that intro buisness greeting with the automatic machines warning message that phone calls are recorded for quality assurance speach
both parties are known by this method it would seem without having to tell one because their automatic buisness intro greeting of the conversation includes the knowlege so the employee taking the customers call should also know
i mean you have to assume the Buisness is gonna use the recordings for legal verbal contracts by wording you agree and accept or same with you agree to be charged or don't agree for dispute purposes so i can assume they will use it legally against you if you break the verbal contract with them so both parties are known to be recorded if a buisness uses those crafty sneaky automated voice intros that you are being recorded for quality assurance