Comcast Collects A Combined 20 Years Worth Of Fees From Two Customers Who Never Received What They Were Paying For
from the $30/month-for-a-piece-of-worthless-paper dept
As Comcast continues to push for a dominating hold on the American cable market, it seems completely oblivious to the fact that it is historically one of the worst companies in the nation in terms of customer service. The Consumerist has bestowed its "Worst Company in America" award on the cable company more than once, and the internet is littered with Comcast customer service horror stories. According to Comcast, people who may oppose its proposed merger with Time Warner aren't expressing genuine consternation that a rude behemoth might get bigger and ruder, they're just being "ignorant" and "unreasonable."Well, two recent stories collected by the Consumerist website detail both ignorance and unreasonableness -- and in both cases, it's the cable giant that has a monopoly on both.
Apparently, Comcast offers security systems in some markets. "Offers" being the key word. It seems to be a bit lax on actually maintaining a system that provides security.
When you pay $30 per month for a security system, you sort of expect to get a working security system. At least, most people would. Not in Comcastlandia, the strange world ruled by the corporate policies of Comcast. A Houston family started alarm service in 2007, and then learned from experience that their alarm system wasn’t working. And hadn’t in the entire seven years that they had been paying for service.The customers uncovered this seven-year gap in coverage after finding their back door open after returning home. However, the alarm hadn't been triggered. After bringing the issue to Comcast's attention, the company discovered the alarm had been offline for more than a half-decade. Rather than express any genuine concern about this lapse, Comcast's first move was to blame the customer for paying for a service that didn't exist.
Comcast countered that the seven years of non-service weren’t their fault, since the user agreement says that customers are supposed to test their systems monthly. If the system is offline and the customer hasn’t tested it, that makes everything the customer’s fault.In total, the customer had paid more than $2100 for nothing at all. Comcast's counteroffer? A $20 credit. Once the local TV station got involved, Comcast changed course and offered a full refund.
Seven years is a pretty impressive run of non-service, but another Comcast customer has that beat.
An 88-year-old woman in Florida is on a fixed income, but enjoys watching telenovelas, so she dutifully paid her $29 Comcast cable bill every month. There was one small problem with that, though: Comcast wasn’t providing her with any cable service. The condominium building where she lives provides cable to all residents, through a different company that is not Comcast.Once again, Comcast reacted to this news in the Comcastian of fashions. Total intake over 13 years of non-service? $4,500. Refund amount offered? $174.
The building switched providers from Comcast to Charter back in 2000. Yes, that’s right: she’s been paying for cable service that she didn’t get for more than 13 years.
And once again, it's local TV to the rescue, shaming the ignorant and unreasonable company into refunding the whole amount.
Now, for those still insisting no harm will be done by the Comcast-Time Warner merger, just think about how many more opportunities Comcast will have to collect money for doing even more than its usual nothing. A company with a horrendous customer service record shouldn't be rewarded with a doubling of its customer base. Of course, Time Warner isn't that much of an improvement, and it's been clear for years that both cable companies have long passed the Too Big To Care threshold. Combining these forces into a singular bastion of ineptitude and antipathy towards the public simply subtracts one company from the pool of "Worst Company in America" contestants.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As cheap as Comcast things it's services are when it comes time to refund non-existant services is not how they think of these same services when you go to start one. Were there competition in any meaningful form, none of this would be an issue. There is nothing to direct them into better service or more value for the service as long as that competition does not exist. Take the last mile control away from these companies and give it back to the people that own them and paid for them through the tax incentives that were given to these companies for improvements they never made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All cable television really needs is competition.
However, providing internet service is a different issue, and I'd argue that internet could be considered a utility that everyone needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
besides there being NO COMPETITION, but merely collusion (gosh, didn't that used to be kinda sorta 'illegal'?), you are nearly 'forced' into buying BOTH the teevee crap to get the inertnet crap...
you don't bundle, they jack up the prices so much, you might as well bundle...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All cable television really needs is competition.
However, providing internet service is a different issue, and I'd argue that internet could be considered a utility that everyone needs."
Nobody technically NEEDS electricity, water, gas, or radio. We lived for many years without those things. The question isn't if it should be a regulated public utility, but whether there are anticompetitive collusive practices going on here. If the evidence shows that, then there needs to be something done through antitrust legislation.
They government has no problem telling them what they can or can't show on TV and fining them when they break their rules. This is done for what reason? To protect us from obscene material? The FCC just wants to continue lining their pockets with money from the lobbyists of providers and content makers. They care nothing about the people they are "advocating" for and the same can be said about the other alphabet agencies for the most part.
Also, there are many alternatives to the internet and places to get on the internet for free. That is just your opinion and a nonsensical one at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They government has no problem telling them what they can or can't show on TV and fining them when they break their rules. This is done for what reason? To protect us from obscene material?"
I have said for a very long time that this part of the FCC needs to go away. You don't have a right not to be offended by what you see and hear over public airwaves. Period. No where in the first amendment does it say "unless it is obscene." Obscenity laws are by definition unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a monopoly is a monopoly
Monopolies and subversion of the market and corruption aren't acceptable just because you manage to find a suitable label to make it seem OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a monopoly is a monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Making cable/communication companies "public utilities", resulting in people being forced to pay for them and said cable/communication companies would have even less of an incentive to do good - as they'd get paid either way via State extortion ("taxation"), would be atrocious.
The biggest issue today is the government enforced monopolies/oligopolies that cable/communication companies have. Where I live you can only get Comcast for cable services, thanks to a cozy fascistic government regulation.
The power to regulate is the power to grant favors.
We need more competition in the marketplace so that consumers have more choice and can take their business elsewhere if their cable provider isn't up to snuff.
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Comcast tries to screw everyone equally. It just happens that elderly and mentally-deficient people do not catch on as quickly as everyone else.
So really, it is the fault of the elderly and mentally-deficient, not Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*FRY SQUINTY EYE MEME*
...or just trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When high definition service came in, they had an ongoing problem with audio/visual sync - sound not lip-synched to the picture. The difference was more than the re-sync on my receiver could handle, and varied throughout the day. Swapped cable boxes, diagnosed; eventually they told me there was nothing they could do and I had to live with it.
Dumped the Comcast box and used a TiVo w/cable card instead, and the problem disappeared. So much for unfixable problems.
Best thing I could say for them is when a competitor came into the area, they price matched without blinking an eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did they service match?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you run this story already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you run this story already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you run this story already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Too Big To Care" is not the real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know, but it sure does sound like a handy bit of small print if your system fails and people get robbed as a result... I somehow doubt they have it spelled out anywhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's been a while, but I remember the contract I signed (with two different security companies) said that the maintenance of the equipment (since the equipment was mine) was my responsibility. It also said I should test my system regularly to assure that it works.
There are quite a few companies that now monitor through alarm.com, so it is pretty easy to determine whether or not your system is working properly through their website. They also send notifications through email if the alarm is offline or is not responding and even if the power fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Comcast handled this badly (they should have just given the refund up front), but I can't blame them for "failing to provide service" if there was a fault at the customer's location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's reading a lot into the statement. "Comcast determined" could mean they actually did an investigation both onsite and off, not that they simply checked the logs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I saw this story a week or two ago somewhere else that had some other details. When they called for support, they found out the system had never been activated - or had been offline for their entire contract.
There are at least 2 pretty obvious failures that aren't the customer's fault. First, the tech who initially set it up making sure it was installed and working properly. And second, seeing the alarm as offline for years and still charging them - without any kind of notification that it was offline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's kinda funny you say that. The "Further reading" link on the Consumerist article is labeled "The hidden cost of false alarms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Comcast Screws the Customer"
Highlighting all of the different ways comcast screws the customer.
It will be sold as a premium addon, produced by the local TV stations, and profits benefiting those who get their 15 minutes of fame on the channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean it will be included as part of the package customers need to buy to get their local news and weather, but increase the price by another $10 per month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want my refund!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want my refund!
The problem isn't people trying to profit from Comcast, the problem is Comcast actually taking money for a service they didn't provide then offering an insulting pittance before people went public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I want my refund!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I want my refund!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want my refund!
For example, if you have a mobile service but you have your phone turned off for a month, you don't suddenly become exempt from the bill for service. You still have to pay your mobile provider because they were still providing the service you asked for, even if you opted not to use it.
However, if you realised after a month that the provider had your account turned off on their end and thus provided no service, you'd be entitled to a full refund.
A slightly shaky analogy, but they're 2 different situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Tim Comcast wants to fix the second one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No worries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No worries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No worries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will get better
I can hardly wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcrap is crap
I got a notice that they corrected the error by back billing me for the 3+ years that they said I had it. To take it off the bill, I just had to return the box I never had.
After 2 more reviews, a representative called me and said he had good news for me. He told the original decision stood and all I have to do is to return the box (that I never had). He was also pleased to announce that I have now exhausted all my reviews of the situation.
According to comcast, the box was installed in the lounge (I do not have a lounge, I had an efficiency). I asked the person if the box was installed by a tech, they said yes. I said fine, show me the paperwork, I was put on hold and then he said they didn't have any because it was not installed by a tech, it was a self install. I asked how they send the self install kits, he said by UPS. I said fine, there is a tracking number and a signature. I want to see it. I was put on hold, he came back and said for some reason it was sent by usps and there is no signature. I asked if the box was addressable, he said yes. I asked when it was turned on. He said never. I asked do you have any proof at all that I ever possessed the box? He said yes because it is on my account and we (comcast) did make a mistake but we corrected it by back billing you for the box that I was never billed for. I said I never had the box, it was never signed for by me, it was never installed in my apartment, you have no proof except for a number in your system, the box was never turned on and I do not have it. How do I get it off my account. His response was "All you have to do is return the box" (that I never had) "or else we will bill you until you do return it". He said thank you, he is closing the case and for me to have a nice day. He then hung up on me.
Luckily I was at work while I was screaming at this joker. Someone over heard me and said her mother was a manager at comcast and she took the box off my account.
If it wasn't for her, I would still be paying for that box probably until the end of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcrap is crap
Naw. You'd just have to go through the hassle of taking them to small claims or getting a consumer advocate to handle it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcrap is crap
It happened in 2007 and I really could not believe how inept they were. No wonder they have 3 inch bullet proof glass between them and the customer. They treat you like crap and expect us to just keep taking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comcrap is crap
Why not? Unless, of course, they actually had a signed receipt from you that they could have brought to court. That wouldn't have turned out so well for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comcrap is crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comcrap is crap
Honestly the thought of taking them to court never really crossed my mind. I was pissed that they screwed me but I was also glad it was done.
I do not think I could do anything now since it happened just about 7 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caveat Emptor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, they received what they paid for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over the past year until I moved a couple weeks ago, I had TW w/ 1 HDDVR box, HBO and Showtime - pretty damn simple. For 10 months of that time, they billed by for 2 boxes. When the TW/Showtime fuckery was happening, I cancelled Showtime and they continued to bill for it every single month - with me calling every month to tell them it was a mistake, and having them credit me the money. I discovered the 10 months of being double billed for my box when I returned my equipment and they realized I only had a single box and the accident happened because they had to replace a broken DVR box, but the service man forgot to log it, but refused to refund me since I was no longer a customer. It took having a propery manager threaten to drop our local representative for the fuck up to get him to refund me my hundred and someodd dollars. If they had only put and "x2" or separate line items for the 2 boxes, I would have been able to correct it on day one, but they basically tried to hide it in the bill.
Now to Comcast, which is far worse. I had to fight with them for several years to remove an "unpaid" bill from my credit report that they sent to collections over a month AFTER I paid it. I moved out of an apartment that my roomate stayed in and transferred the service to him. There was a mistake in the transfer and they only added him to the account and forgot to take me off. After he didn't pay the bill and racked up a little over a grand in charges in 90 days, they finally gave me a call asking for the money. I paid it in full on the spot, had them close the account, and set up a plan to have my roomate pay me back and return the equipment (and start a new cable plan if he wanted it). A month later, a collection agency starts calling me about it. I told them I paid the bill and gave them a copy of the receipt I had from Comcast. They kept calling and ignoring what I was telling them - and even Comcast said they dropped the collections because it was an accident so I asked them for confirmation and proof of the debt, which they never sent, and stopped taking their calls. Six months later, guess what shows up on my credit report? TWO hits, for $500 each (because why not trash someones credit twice for a single bill, right?) a month apart from each other... It took months to have experian zero out the debt and another year to get them to remove it completely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I ever move to a state with Optimum, I'll have the pleasure of being fucked by every major cable carrier in the country. But hey, they are such great companies, why not let them further expand their monopolies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would a Comcast / Time-Warner merger...
Just pondering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC
Any person bringing attention of this type of fraud must report it to the FCC and if after the initial 30 days there is still a problem then comcast must stop registering new customers until they resolve the problems they have.
For every new customer they sign on they are to pay 3x the annual subscription in a fine and 5 years free subscription of their top packages.Any problems with this service either with slow internet connectivity or blocked channels results in more fines and payments to the customer of $250 for each offence,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhh - where's the interest charges at?
I'd sue for interest @ the maximum allowed credit card rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alarm tests...
Every alarm panel I ever had my hands on came out of the box set to autotest once a week. There were options for daily or monthly tests but you had to change those. Autotest means that the alarm panel will send a test signal to the monitoring station; the subscriber does not have to do anything. The signal sent will be different from a burglary signal so the monitoring station will know not to worry.
Any monitoring station worth their reputation will have policies on what to do if they don't get a signal of any kind from an alarm panel. The default is one week, but the subscriber can ask for one month. If no signal of any kind - including autotest - is received after said period the monitoring station normally calls the subscriber to report "failure to test" and encourage the subscriber to have their system checked.
If this did not happen in this case, no contract will help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Untrue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Untrue
http://www.cabletv.com/charter/fl
Now, that's an official reseller rather than Charter themselves, and it seems to be limited to certain cities. But, it seems that they most certainly do offer service there by some means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another
Years ago they sent me a second cable box. I only had one TV. When I called in to get it straightened out they blamed me! They said they would not send out a box without me ordering it. I only had one TV! Yeah, I ordered two boxes for one TV. Never your fault Comcast...
I am now a happy customer of a satellite provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast or bust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bogus story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]