Slashdot Mirror


Comcast May Have Enrolled Thousands in a Near-Worthless Protection Program Without Their Consent (gizmodo.com)

Comcast has been embroiled in a legal battle since 2016 regarding potentially deceptive business practices surrounding its "Service Protection Plan" -- a $6 a month program which covered almost nothing. But as an amended complaint recently filed by the Washington state attorney general alleges, Comcast didn't just dupe customers, it may have signed them up for the plan without their knowledge. From a report: You might expect such a plan to, uh, protect the service a customer is paying for, by decreasing or eliminating the cost of repairs in the event something goes haywire. Not so! The fine print of the program excludes in-wall wiring and some outdoor wiring. This led the attorney general to conclude that the plan "simply covers the technician visiting the customer's house and declaring that the customer's equipment is broken."

52 comments

  1. Fire insurance? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

    Is that like the fire insurance that also protects your kneecaps, only sold by Big Uncle Vinny?

  2. I'm sure they did by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    this happens because call center reps are required to get a certain number of add on sales to keep their jobs. Even in rare instances where they're not the low pay means they need to push a number of these in the desperate hope they'll make enough money this month for rent _and_ food. It's a symptom of wealth inequality.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm sure they did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See also: Wells Fargo. If you ever thought they were the exception and not the rule, well, exhibit A.

    2. Re:I'm sure they did by haruchai · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comcast, the Wells Fargo of the Internet

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...`

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:I'm sure they did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has absolutely nothing to do with wealth inequality. This has everything to do with a corrupt business that can afford to be caught performing deceptive or downright fraudulent charges because the fines do not outweigh the profits.

      My wife, then going through law school, caught this charge on her first bill and challenged it with the regional manager. The manager literally said he couldn't find out how it go onto her bill (as-in, the system did not show an agent adding it) and claimed to have removed it. Whether that is true or not is anyone's guess given that it is Comcast. Low and behold, the next month rolls in and the fee was still there. Finally the next call and a more formal legal threat got it removed.

      This is a problem with the complex systems that these massive businesses build to intentionally confuse their customers, which is completely accepted by the government that affords them their local monopolies, which leads to such things being "oops" moments until they're caught because the number that catch them are always lower than the number that do not. It's not generally because some lowly call center employee is adding these because they need to eat that night. The fact that you immediately blamed the working poor rather than the notoriously evil business is quite telling about your political spectrum and your intelligence.

    4. Re:I'm sure they did by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

      Former call center rep checking in: Yes.

      You have to meet certain metrics even when those metrics are outside your control.

      The way they work it is by saying "we understand you can't get the customer to do xxx on every call, that's why we don't require 100% compliance."

      And then in the same breath they say "how you perform with regard to these metrics directly impacts your ability to get promotions and in a situation where there are layoffs these numbers will be used to decide who stays and who goes."

      In my career I have personally witnessed supervisors adjusting metrics to retain employees they like at multiple call centers.

  3. Old Glory Robot Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nice representative from Comcast also signed me up for Old Glory Robot Insurance. You never know when there's going to be another robot attack. They eat old people's medicine for fuel!

    1. Re:Old Glory Robot Insurance by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Old Glory Robot Emergency Insurance aka O.G.R.E. insurance.

  4. what, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gizmodo was bought by univision after gawker went tits up
    univision is owned by comcast
    there is no disclaimer of this relationship on the article

    1. Re: what, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to sum up, Comcast Univision and Gizmodo are all for shit. Figures given their hate of all things Trump. Slimy bastards.

  5. Job killng regulations! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
    High time we stop government from engaging in such high handed tactics. The Constitution specifically prohibits the government taking property away from people without due process and compensation. Corporations are people. The contract they have with their customers is their property with great revenue potential. Government can not stop corporations from bilking their customers. It is against free markets.

    Just get government off my back,( so that the corporations can stab me there without any impediment).

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Job killng regulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Buyer beware. If these dummies can't figure out they are being billed for a bogus service, who are we to interfere. Better that these welfare queens squander it on Comcast rather than drugs or booze

    2. Re:Job killng regulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's also join the Sith Lords as absolutists that cannot understand the ridiculously simple difference between unwanted regulations and helpful regulations.

      More to the point, this story is about a lawsuit that has raged on since 2016, a year where Obama was wrapping up his second term with the most added regulations in US history.

      The issue here is that ISPs like Comcast commonly have local monopolies that completely prevent real competition, which is enforced by the government that you are so idiotically pushing to "help" with more regulations. We need the government to get out of the damn way and stop helping these companies, with the full help from useful idiots like you that do not understand that you are literally asking for more of the same.

      If those local monopolies were busted, then this problem would fix itself overnight. Comcast, TWC, Cox, Verizon, etc would be forced to compete with non-deceptive [and often local] businesses as well as each other. Most customers would flock to no hassle companies that are not ratcheting up their bill as fast as possible and the companies would be in trouble with their shareholders due to losing customers.

      But, nope, let's continue to parrot the same idiocy. It's because we're killing regulations that companies can do this! We need more government to solve it!

    3. Re:Job killng regulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is ran by corporations. What we need, is the government to not be ran by corporations. That would be through..regulation. But it would have to be regulation done by a government that is..not ran by corporations. Anywho, on with the fantasies, who wants to talk about Jesus?

    4. Re:Job killng regulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the constitution is, suppose to be, only binding to the federal government. Washington is a state and, for the most part, can do whatever they want.

  6. RICO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At just what fucking point does someone in the government start looking at Comcast though RICO eyes? It's not that far-fetched, and is not an unrealistic or unfair viewpoint.

    Trump, you have a clown named Sessions. Do you have him doing anything useful? You know, something other than threatening to attempt to go after legal marijuana? Maybe you should tell the guy to deal with crime. You know, companies like Comcast. This shouldn't just be a matter of fines; you need to start arresting people who do things like in TFA and either they do the time, or they roll over on their bosses in exchange for immunity.

    Jeff Sessions, stop being soft on crime.

    1. Re:RICO? by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate to agree with an AC, but this is nothing more than organized theft and should be punished as such. Throw the CEO and the board into jail.

    2. Re:RICO? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      At just what fucking point does someone in the government start looking at Comcast though RICO eyes?

      Unfortunately, Comcast owns too many folks in the government.

      Comcast is "too big to fail" or be held accountable for their actions. Any attempt to touch Comcast with RICO or anything else would be blocked by their "associates" in government.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Rules for living a successful life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Avoid doing business with Comcast ...

  8. Just be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the FCC, they just need to be upfront about screwing you over, and then it's fine. They can't even do that right?

  9. company deleted 90 percent by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    The AG’s office said that Comcast initially refused to provide recordings because it was “burdensome.” After the judge ordered Comcast to provide calls, the company deleted 90 percent of the samples the AG’s office had requested.

    Sounds like some high up person at comcast needs to do some hardtime or at least go to criminal court over that.

    1. Re:company deleted 90 percent by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Comcast should be nationalized and spun off piece by piece, with negligible compensation to the current stockholders. When you allow your company operate with such complete disregard for decency you as a shareholder deserve to be spit on, not rewarded.

    2. Re:company deleted 90 percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the current administration can get away with editing and deleting email evidence requested by a special investigator, why can't one of their major corporate donors and benefactors of their "landmark tax reform" do something similar?

    3. Re:company deleted 90 percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] Sounds like some high up person at comcast needs to do some hardtime or at least go to criminal court over that.

      Nope. He should be appointed as the new WA state AG.

    4. Re:company deleted 90 percent by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      When you allow your company operate with such complete disregard for decency you as a shareholder deserve to be spit on, not rewarded.

      Yeah! Because I heard from someone that every stockholder in Comcast has the personal telephone number of the Comcast CEO and the ability to walk into his office and fire him!

      Get a grip, please. The vast majority of Comcast stockholders probably don't even know they own Comcast stock, and certainly don't have controlling interest in the company to the point they could order this stopped. That is, it's probably a major component of many retirement portfolios, so it's held by middle income people who have retirement money tied up in this.

    5. Re:company deleted 90 percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's no excuse. you should educate yourself on what your share portfolio looks like and insist your money isn't invested in businesses that do this sort of thing. If all tha smaller shareholders did this companies would certainly start to take notice

    6. Re:company deleted 90 percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is being suggested, and you are supporting, is effectively making it even harder for people who aren't already wealthy to own shares by increasing risk without giving them a viable way of influencing it. Given that the return on equities has been so good historically anything that makes access to this harder for them is likely to further increase inequality.

      How about we try and get as far as consistently applying reasonable penalties for this kind of behaviour before advocating for ridiculously excessive responses.

  10. As usual, hang on before you light the torches by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

    For most if not all of the providers I've had over the years, there was a significant fee for the tech visit if the problem ended up being on your end, and that's true with Comcast as well. Looks like they're running around $70 per trip at the moment, and for $6 a month, that fee gets waived. So the break-even is about a year between visits. Depending on the condition of your internal wiring and your personal troubleshooting abilities, that may not be a bad deal.

    Automatically signing people up is a different issue, but it seems a bit much to say that the program is "near-worthless."

    1. Re:As usual, hang on before you light the torches by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      It's a ripoff. I have never had to have a tech come to my house except ONCE years ago. No charge because they changed the cable coming to the house as the old cable was the original from the 70's.

    2. Re:As usual, hang on before you light the torches by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's a ripoff. I have never had to have a tech come to my house except ONCE years ago.

      And some people get visits more often. The dog chews the cable, it's pinched in a door, pulled from the wall. The same kid who tried putting the peanut butter sandwich in the VCR spilled his juice box on the converter. Or the cheap Chinese splitter you put in the line to hook up your own stuff is marginal enough that it failed after six months or because the incoming signal level dropped a dB or two. Or you installed it and never noticed that the upper frequency channels didn't come in well, and now you have.

      If you don't think you need it, fine, but your experience isn't what other people have.

  11. Is selling worthless "services" illegal? by swb · · Score: 1

    If I come up with a newfangled name for a service and provide a 5 page contract that says in very convoluted terms the service doesn't do anything but because of my salesmanship I get you to buy it, is that illegal? Some kind of fraud?

    Or is it just considered good salesmanship, and the fact that the sale was consensual and I didn't withhold any material facts make it A-OK?

    I'm trying to think of a way that this could be made illegal, or at least greatly discourage companies from doing it. If you sue them for a refund and the judge/jury determine that the service was materially devoid of any value.

    1. Re:Is selling worthless "services" illegal? by plague911 · · Score: 1

      It is illegal. For a contract to be valid, it must have some tangible benefit to both parties, otherwise the contract instantly becomes invalid. The benefit can be small to one of the parties, but it must exist.

    2. Re:Is selling worthless "services" illegal? by swb · · Score: 1

      I wonder how they determine tangible benefit. I've had homeowner's insurance for 20 years and never gotten a dime out of it. You'd think insurance would be some kind of loophole.

    3. Re:Is selling worthless "services" illegal? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't know - ask the CEO of LifeLock.

    4. Re:Is selling worthless "services" illegal? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't have to be. They would just have to look at the customers in aggregate. If nobody had a claim for 20 years, then there's no tangible benefit. Though flood insurance would have to look at a much longer period of time depending on where you live.

  12. How very Comcast of Comcast by plague911 · · Score: 1

    Their name needs to become an adjective , just like google became a verb. Maybe when their name literally translates to scummy customer service they will finally get a clue. Or at least have to pay the financial price to change their name and re-brand. Somehow they must be punished. .

    1. Re:How very Comcast of Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcastic!

  13. Um.. did you bother reading my post by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    or do you just do a CTRL-F on every /. article for 'wealth inequality' and throw out a rant?

    This has _everything_ to do with wealth inequality. This is about the working poor (which 99% of call center employees are) being forced to do questionable and illegal things. Companies give employees unreasonable sales metrics and either threaten them with disciplinary action if they don't meet them and/or cut their pay to the point where it's impossible to survive without the meager bonuses. When the employees inevitably lie and cheat to survive the company blames the employees. Wells Fargo's mistake was doing it to such a scale that they couldn't use the 'bad actors' excuse, it was too pervasive in the company.

    As a lawyer with a spouse who's also a lawyer you've probably never had to struggle to get by, or if you did it was so long ago you simply forgot what it's like. Push people hard enough and they're going to do bad things. Also, as a lawyer, essentially a member of the merchant class that aids the Aristocracy, you should pay careful attention to how far you push the working class. We had two World Wars when we pushed them too far, and with the exception of war profiteers they were not kind to the merchant class.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um.. did you bother reading my post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > merchant class that aids the Aristocracy

      Yeah ok. Keep reading those books and keep dreaming of having your Marxist dreams come true.

    2. Re:Um.. did you bother reading my post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ok. Keep reading those books and keep dreaming of having your Marxist dreams come true.

      Many non-Marxists agree with his analysis of the flaws of capitalism without agreeing with his solutions. But I guess that's a bit of a complex though for your little black-and-white world.

    3. Re:Um.. did you bother reading my post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the author of that post, I did read your post. And I am not a lawyer -- only my wife is. Ironically, because of her [enormous] law school debt, we are moderately struggling because the legal market is awful right now (far too many lawyers for far too few of jobs). Fortunately my job as a programmer helps us to stay above water.

      But, back to the point: you're literally blaming the poor for a problem solely defined and created by a government supported monopoly. It is the most asinine idea to blame an entire class of people for a problem that a few large businesses have created. In the majority case, these businesses setup the system so that these fees are opt-out rather than opt-in, which does not make it the poor employee's fault that they did not uncheck the box a couple times. I also fully believe that there are tons of bugs in these systems and it probably doesn't always take effect. Are there plenty of shady people boosting their numbers? At the scale of companies like Comcast and Wells Fargo it's obviously yes, but the problem is the system that those companies created: not the working poor.

      The working poor are a class of people that deserve our support and help. Not our blame and indirect accusations that they are too dumb or downright poor to do the right thing.

      And that's the difference between someone that blames wealth inequality for a business that needs to be metaphorically beaten with many Judge's gavels, and someone that actually sees the real problems. You are looking for an excuse to proclaim that those poor people just need a bit more money from those rich people at the top, then these problems would go away! No business could take advantage of their customers, even if the government gives them a local monopoly, if only the working poor weren't quite so poor!

      Noting your response to the other replyer and it's pretty clear where you're sitting. You've convinced yourself that you're not only smarter than the working poor, but that you're better than them too. And it's up to you, and people like you, to fix their problems for them by breaking up the evil capitalist system in favor of a socialist one (ergo wealth inequality). Capitalism absolutely is not perfect, but it's far better than two systems that actively discourage improvement. But most importantly, Comcast is a true example of communism failing the people: a government mandated monopoly that can offer any quality of service it wants while constantly increasing prices (and fees!) for no reason because there's no competition.

  14. Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast has not ethics and its not surprising coming from Comcast. Have they ever taken any concern for their customers? Other then charging them all sorts of fee's for something to fill their coffers.

  15. FAKE NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows Comcast has the best customer service and is completely trustworthy, believe me!

  16. AT&T by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    AT&T did this to us. Investigate those fuckers.

  17. PT Barnum.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was right.

  18. Comcast employs few service techs by stolidobserver · · Score: 1

    Most of their service techs are subcontractors, at least in my area, and they don't know anything. I've had a "Comcast tech" to my house 3 times in about as many years and not once could I actually get this person to enter my house and look at anything because my net was back up and running at the time (usually several days before they arrived). It took my mom calling and leaning on her medical need for working internet to report her pacemaker results for them to fix the problem, which I always knew was at their end and not ours. Since that time, our downtimes have reduced by a drastic amount; I was keeping detailed logs of outages happening every day and they evaporated. Anyway, the point was that you shouldn't get a protection plan from them because they are likely going to scapegoat whoever they contract for services and you will be in court forever trying to prove that they have defaulted on their end of the deal..

  19. Call centers... modern day slave galleys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my first jobs was developing call center software and I often had to go onsite to work on integration with their pbx (this was decades ago when integration was... interesting). Every single call center was a miserable place and I actually left the job because my work was contributing... managers were using the software to ensure staff were meeting their targets on average length of calls, number of calls answered per hour, time on hold, etc. To a man (and they were always men^H^H^H bros), the managers were jacka**es who made the worst used car salesmen look like a paragon of virtue. I had one who tried to insist that the system was not recording stats after I left in a bid to get me fired... why?... because I declined to go to a strip club with him after putting in 20+ hours fixing a problem caused by a major PBX upgrade they didn't even bother telling us about until I noticed the data feed had changed and called them on it. Thankfully the dumbass didn't know that we could remote into the systems for rudimentary diagnostics which clearly showed the stats updating just fine.

  20. ATT does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T pulls the same crap forced customers to move to dual dsl they call unverse with a promise of no maintenance fee for their modem that only they supply the a monthly fee appears on your bill for the maintenance and they refuse to remove it big business runs the people that run the country so they get away with pretty much anything they want and since many areas have no real competition we are all screwed to use their service as without internet access you can't even sign up for healthcare so they should be regulated as a utility company

  21. Volcano Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just volcano insurance over and over across the whole page!