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?
And, recording or not, they'll soon just start ditching "troublemaking" customers, like the hospitals do.
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!
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 suppose, once you know when the bot is going to say that line, just preemptively ask it:
Can I record this call?
Then when it says
This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes.
They almost certainly wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
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.
"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.
Seems like it should legitimately become a federal issue when there are transactions that occur across state lines with different laws affecting the same transaction.
For instance, if someone in a "one party notice" receives a phone call from someone in a "two party notice" state, and has an app on their phone that automatically records all calls... what happens? Which set of laws apply?
Does it change if the "one party notice" person is the one originating the call?
Does it matter if the person knows the laws of the other state?
Does it matter if the person doesn't even know which state he's calling?
How about if it's a New York phone number but it's routed to a call center in India?
I'm all for limiting the power of the federal government but sometimes it actually makes sense. In the case of inter-state phone calls, there either needs to be a federal law establishing which state's laws apply so that we all know once and for all, or (my preference since it's simpler) a federal law unifying all the state laws. Otherwise it's chaos!