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?

28 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Automated notice not necessary here by sideslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Automated notice not necessary here by tbuddy · · Score: 5, Funny

      In my state all the calls are recorded anonymously for my safety as well as the safety of my country. Freedom isn't free after all.

    2. Re:Automated notice not necessary here by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just wondering, if the other party says the call may be recorded, does that mean its legal for me to record also? Seems fair that if they ask the question they are giving tacit approval for me to record.

    3. Re:Automated notice not necessary here by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Informative

      At the expense of being a karma whore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    4. Re:Automated notice not necessary here by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      It could be better formatted; but our wiki overlords have you covered.

    5. Re:Automated notice not necessary here by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Federal should only be concerned with international and interstate issues

      Such as a phone call that crosses state lines, right?

    6. Re: Automated notice not necessary here by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Constitution does not lay out the powers of the Federal Government with regards to recording. Obviously, the technology didn't exist back then, but still the Federal government does not have that authority; at least until the Supreme Court can shoehorn recording conversations into the Commerce clause.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re: Automated notice not necessary here by stdarg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    8. Re: Automated notice not necessary here by flopsquad · · Score: 5, Informative

      Off the bat, IAABNQAL (I am almost but not quite a lawyer, took the bar but no results until Oct.) so take this with as many grains of salt as you feel appropriate. This isn't legal advice, etc etc.

      The short answer is, this is pretty much unsettled law, but there is good reason to believe that the knowledge and status of the caller (i.e. business vs individual) would matter. The Wiki article cites Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006) for the proposition that, at least if one caller is in CA, its stricter two-party law still applies to out-of-state callers trying to (legally, in their own jurisdictions) record phone calls with CA residents. However, that is too broad a generalization.

      The defendant in that case was Smith Barney, a national brokerage (corporation) with independently sufficient contacts for CA to exercise personal jurisdiction over it anyway ("SSB 'systematically and continually does business' in California, and SSB does not deny that it maintains numerous offices and does extensive business in this state"). SSB was conversing with clients in CA (two-party), but making and receiving calls in GA (one-party), and the CA Supreme Court found that there were compelling reasons not to let a company doing business in CA escape the CA privacy law, much less a business with offices in CA that could conveniently "outsource" its calls to other states (pretty much gutting the law). On a technical point of law, this was also a ruling reversing the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's case, merely allowing the case to proceed and not addressing many of SSB's factual arguments (like "hey, this isn't what the legislature meant by 'confidential communication'").

      However, look at it from the out-of-state consumer perspective and everything changes. Lets make the easy assumption that you don't have any presence, property, or business dealings in the two-party state of CA. First, from a personal jurisdiction standpoint, if someone from an unknown location (oops it's CA, gotcha!) is calling you in your one-party state, you have not established minimum contacts with California because you did not purposefully avail yourself of CA's laws—you didn't contact CA on purpose!

      What if you know they're calling from CA? You're hardly directing any activity at CA by answering the phone. What if you're the one making the call and it's an 800 number to a destination unknown? This happens all the time, on the same day I'll make three calls to customer service and get centers in Illinois, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. Well, you still haven't directed your action at CA if the call winds up there. In all these cases, it would be nigh-impossible for a CA business to make a case against you, because you (almost certainly) didn't establish minimum contacts with California such that the CA courts could exercise its long-arm jurisdiction against you. Even if you had a contract with this company with a CA forum selection clause, it would be a huge stretch; you consented to CA jurisdiction to settle disputes over that contract, you didn't say "I submit to the laws and jurisdiction of California for everything ever."

      What if you're a consumer in a one-party state, knowingly calling a number in a two-party state, to discuss business you have with that company? Well, I would wager you're still in the clear, and in fact I record a significant number of customer service calls as I sit in my one-party state, regardless of where the representative is located or what the telephone number is. I do this in order to protect against the abuses in TFA, "forgetful" supervisors, etc., and I do not worry about the wiretapping laws of some distant state. Why? Well, even though they might be able

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  2. They're Monopolies by fortfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And, recording or not, they'll soon just start ditching "troublemaking" customers, like the hospitals do.

    1. Re:They're Monopolies by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You will be punishing the service reps, not the people who make policy.

      Their service reps are Comcast. They don't get to be "human shields" protecting the corporation from customer outrage. Not while they're on the payroll.

  3. What about Oregon and Washington? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What about Oregon and Washington? by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:What about Oregon and Washington? by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm willing to be damaging a companies reputation with an illegal recording is going to get you into trouble, but I've always taken "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" to mean I am allowed to record, to assure quality service.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:What about Oregon and Washington? by qbast · · Score: 4, Informative

      At this point EU is probably closer to original intent of United States than modern USA.

    4. Re:What about Oregon and Washington? by budgenator · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm willing to be damaging a companies reputation with an illegal recording is going to get you into trouble, but I've always taken "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" to mean I am allowed to record, to assure quality service.

      I'm curious about your theory of mere mortals being suficiently powerfull to further damage Comcast's reputation.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  4. I have to record calls for a living... by jddj · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  6. Why isn't call recording a smartphone feature? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! by bagboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Quit COMPLAINING about Comcast and buy them out. by F34nor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Quit COMPLAINING about Comcast and buy them out by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. yeah yeah by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?"

    ...the conversation doesn't go well from there.

    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.
    1. Re:yeah yeah by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I get a choice between Comcast (who works decently enough, as much as I detest their policies) at 50Mbps, or AT&T U-verse at 3Mbps (that's all they could get the modem to train up at). One is more bandwidth than I actually need, but the other isn't enough to handle my telecommuting needs.

      Comcast is literally the only ISP available to me with greater than 3Mbps of bandwidth. Given that even the FCC thinks maybe broadband starts at 10Mbps, and that I work in tech and legitimately need decent transfer speeds to do my job, I'm stuck.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  11. Recording Apps by SailorSpork · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  12. Corporate Culture by Nemesisghost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. So, is that we're now forced to do? by tekrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  14. Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! by Superdarion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.