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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.