Behind The Veil Part 3: Comcast Rep Confirms That You Should Always Record Customer Service Calls
from the we're-listening dept
As you probably know by now, Comcast has been in the news quite a bit lately for all the wrong reasons. It started with a recorded call of one Comcast customer attempting to cancel his service before being passed over to a "customer retention" representative who had watched entirely too much Boiler Room. Comcast made a great deal of noise about how this wasn't how they told their reps to conduct their business, which, thanks to the Verge's call for input from past and current Comcast employees, was shown pretty conclusively to a complete lie. It's been a pretty, nice, little lesson in why breeding the kind of monopoly that Comcast tends to hold in many areas of this country is a really crappy idea. The other lesson that this should be teaching all of us is the importance of recording customer service calls with Comcast*.And that appears to apply even for customers of Comcast that aren't trying to flee their brand of customer service. Tim Davis uploaded a (NSFW due to language) recording to YouTube of a couple of conversations he had with Comcast's customer service.
If you can't listen to the audio, or want a quick breakdown: Tim had moved recently and chose to relocate his Comcast service because, according to the video, he didn't have a choice due to a lack of competitive providers. I've gone through this myself several times in Chicago; it sucks. In any case, he did the internet portion of the install himself, as I too have done several times. All went well until a few weeks later when he was experiencing intermittent outages. An initial call with Comcast confirmed the problem was with the wiring outside the home, not the internal setup. Tim recorded that conversation, including when a Comcast rep confirmed that there is no charge to have a technician do work on outside lines to provide adequate service. Makes sense. A tech comes out, fixes the outside line issue, tests the network inside the home to assure connectivity is restored, and leaves. Then this happens.
All is fine until a week or two later when Davis receives a bill that includes $99.99 for "Failed Self Install," another $32 for "Failed Video [Self Install Kit]," and $49.95 for "Wireless Network SET Up." That's $181.94 in total. But, insists Davis, the problem wasn't that he failed to do the self-install correctly or that there was a failed self-install kit, since the problem involved cables entering his property that he never touched. Similarly, the tech never set up or did anything with Davis's WiFi system, so the set-up charge is bogus.When Tim calls up to dispute the charges, he's told several things. First, the rep applies a "discount" that wipes out about fifty dollars. Then she insists she cannot apply any credits because all of the tech's service charges are valid, despite Tim informing her of both the recording of the call with the other rep that said there would be no charge and the fact that the tech would have had to have the apartment landlord's approval to access what the tech claimed he'd worked on. Instead of applying a credit, she suggests she upgrade his internet for a year for free instead, which would be of a $60 or so value. $121 or $60 in temporary service upgrades...guess which Tim wanted? He insisted the bogus charges to be credited back to him. The rep then claims she'd get back to him. When she did, she confirmed that everyone on the planet should be recording their calls to Comcast's customer service.
She eventually calls back later than planned, and after escalating his call one final time she tells him that the full $82 will actually be credited back to his account. When Davis asks why she couldn't simply do that during the earlier call, her explanation is enough to make you pound your head through a wall in frustration.Everyone got that? Customer service reps dealing with disputed charges will try to "negotiate" with you and you only have a chance at legitimate recourse if you record all your calls with them. Keep digging, Comcast. I don't think the grave is big enough yet.
"We try to negotiate, and again, that is a valid charge," she answers. "But since I advised my manager that there is a recording and you were misinformed, then she's the one who can approve that $82."
Seemingly flabbergasted, Davis asks to confirm, "You're telling me that if I didn't have a recording of that call, you wouldn't have been able to do it?"
"Yes, that is correct," answers the rep, confirming that the only way to get Comcast to erase a bogus charge from your account is to have recorded evidence that you were promised in advance that the call would be free.
* Oh, but if you're recording your call, you may want to pay attention to the local laws about such things.
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
Filed Under: customer service, recording phone calls
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
Its their fault for not asking permission but assuming it, and using badly worded warnings via automated message. It is never the reps that say it anymore, its the IVR that informs you of it. No option to refuse and continue, you have to get to a rep and then go round and round with them...most places now reps have the option to force record so their managers^H^H^H supervisors have more records to pick and choose from, but the system still automatically will record without the rep knowing if they are being recorded.
Still, i like your style Anon, even if i have no idea how it'll fly in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
All it would take to send you to prison for wiretapping (or local equivalent) would be for the living human you eventually talk to to claim he forgot that his employer records calls, or claim he didn't know that particular call was being recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I've always wondered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something I've always wondered
I think that would be a pretty hard claim to support in court. From what I hear, phone reps can't ignore that the calls are being monitored, since that monitoring is used to evaluate their performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast to English Translation
We try to negotiate, and again, that is a valid charge,
English:
We always f*** over our customers whenever possible, and like I fraudulently claimed before, that is a charge that our system puts on every bill that we send out as long as a technician has been dispatched to your general area,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast to English Translation
"We're trying to negotiate with you but your failure to agree with everything we say is causing the negotiations to fail."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need to record your interaction with the tech also.
$200 for Pivothead glasses do I fine job of recording interactions.
Then, when you get the bill, inform them of your Tort Letter that you will sue for attempted fraud for treble damages.
Let a judge settle the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let a judge settle the matter."
You vs. a mega-corp. Do I have to tell you which one the judge will favor? The legal system is corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. Hope you have another provider ready because if you sue them they will probably blacklist you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now it IS true that the mega-corp will more likely comply with legal and procedural rules better than the little guy, which gives them a better chance of success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is what the appeals court is for.
That is why you have a court reporter making the record.
That is why judicial and bar grievances exist.
The legal system is corrupt.
Yes, but here's the thing - you have the power of the press via the Internet. If you document this, you can then pick a fight over the corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How are you supposed to do this if the only ISP in your area has you blacklisted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's bad enough we don't have competition to drive improvements but this just adds insult to injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that mean that Davis can sue for attempted fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Davis' problem in a suit would be that since he caught and avoided any damage, there are no damages to sue over. Had he been deceived, he could sue for the $150 and possibly legal fees related to a suit.
I know that since we are in the US, people think that you can sue someone for millions of dollars just for being an ass, but that's not actually the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From California the affirmative defence:
To determine if the complaint is pled with specificity, you will need to carefully review all allegations, and determine if all elements are adequately described. The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the misrepresentation; (3) the defendant’s intent to deceive the plaintiff; (4) justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation by the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff. California Civil Code § 1709. In order to describe the first element, for example, a “plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.” Decker v. GlenFed, Inc , 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th Cir. 1994).
At the point where you send them the tort letter they can avoid losing a fraud case by reversing the bill. If they choose to attempt to collect/report to a collections agency then #5 happens.
Just because they sent you the $150 bill doesn't create the ability to win a fraud claim, Comcast has to blow you off.
Don't argue with the phone-level staff...argue with legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(parody)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (parody)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (parody)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no way that this is an accident
The only way this happens is that people are trained to do this and required to do this by management. Ordinary human beings placed in customer service roles don't magically become lying, fraudulent jackasses: they only get that way if someone forces them to, on pain of losing their job.
So all this hand-wringing on the part of Comcast brass is bullshit. Not only did they know about all this, they're the source of it. And I'm sure they know, to the last penny, just how immensely profitable it is to rip off their own customers at every available opportunity.
The guy in this story was lucky: he was clueful and paranoid. For every one of him, there are thousands of Comcast customers who are relatively uneducated, poor, elderly, and not nearly as well-equipped to defend themselves from vicious predators such as Comcast customer reps. What percentage of Comcast's profits have come from those people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's no way that this is an accident
First, I think you are being overly generous to say that ordinary human beings are not already lying, fraudulent jackasses. It has been my experience that many of them are.
Second, people can be directed to this kind of behavior with both a stick and a carrot - having monetary incentives for retention and not giving refunds would work just as well (possibly better) than threatening their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's no way that this is an accident
Many does not equal all. It's been my experience that most people are reasonably honest and decent. The main problem is that you can't tell who are decent and who aren't by looking at them.
"people can be directed to this kind of behavior with both a stick and a carrot - having monetary incentives for retention and not giving refunds would work just as well (possibly better) than threatening their jobs."
Which doesn't address the problem at all. The problem is the behavior which Comcast is wanting (and getting) from their employees. It doesn't matter what method they're using to get that behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have tried it a few times and have had reps forced to escalate the call to a supervisor, had them require I come to a physical location to conduct business, and have had reps simply be able to disable it (or so they claimed).
It can be pretty funny because it is typically not a request they have a script for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...conclusively to a complete lie."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI
In practice that means a face to face conversation may be recorded, without informing the other person, as can a phone conversation, so long as the recording device is a separate device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FYI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hac ve umre
www.hacvumre.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hac ve umre
http://www.hacvumre.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast Dirty Policies
My story is, I called Comcast to make a payment via my debit card on the automated pay system via phone (DONT EVER DO THIS). I am a senior citizen & my apt. pays Comcast for basic cable. I decided to get extended cable, went inti Comcast, but I signed no contract as the apt. has contract with them. I only signed doc for a new bix. After six mos.of having ext. Cable I have paid these creeps every month ($78 per mo which is ridiculous and I always have a balance. Anyway, went on auto system, so that lady recording asked me if I wanted to pay full balance due ($143 for past due plus upcoming bill) and I ckearly said NO! Well guess what, thats the only question asked so I thought I was paying the $78 when I gave my credi card no.as I had said NO to paying full amount. You already know what transpired. My card was charged the $143 anyway and I was horrified. I am on social security on a strict budget and I could not afford for them to take the whole $143. I immediarely calked Comcast to tell them the auto system had malfunctioned and was told by s rep that the payment was "pending" and that she was preparing a "ticket" to get the overage payment returned to my card (LIES). My bank said they couldnt reverse the charge & I had to go through a stupid dispute process. So I called Comcast again on this past Monday to see why my card had not received the overcharge. Guess what this creep rep told me. He said just ti wait another 48 hrs and the overage woukd be back on my card. (another blatant lie. It just so happened I recorded this conversation on my cellphone) zi called Comcast again today & guess what? The rep told me they have "no record" of me talking to a rep on Monday, that Comcast had been paid the $143 so there is nothing they can do about reversing it. Of course I let her have it and told her I would sue the s**tnout of Comcast for fraud and misrepresentation. I could swear I heard her laughing under her breath. What they did was tell me to wait 48 hrs with the representation they would return the overage when they knew damn well they had no intention of doing so. They told me to wait 48 hrs in order for me not to put a stop payment on the charge through my bank
and wanted to get the payment cleared before telling me to kick rocks. How sneaky and utterly despicable can you get.
They, of course, have played me but they have messed with the wrong person. I am a retired legal assistant (30+ years in civil litigation) and I have worked with many attorneys and for various big law firms. When I am told I cant sue any entity, I say crap because where there is a will there is a way. My sister is an attorney and so is my nephew (prosecutor) so I am not afraid to go after any entity who has commited fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and in my case infliction of emotional and physical distress (because of their direct action of fraud and misrepresentation & refusal to credit my card, I do not have funds available at this time to purchase life-saving medications I am required to take (I am diabetic), Trivial you say? NO. I have sued a conglomerate before, I was told I couldnt do it, I did sue them and guess who won? I did and I prepared and filed the case In Pro Per (imyself nitially) then my attorney sister substituted in and kicked their a$$ royally. Dont let people tell you you cant fight for truth and justice against these pig companies like Comcast who think they can continue to rob cheat and steal from the public to line their alteady bulging coffers with our hard earned money. Even if I cant win against this reprehensible company called Comcast, I will pursue using every inch of the law I have available, including seeking injunctive relief on behalf of the millions they have cheated and defrauded to ensure they will be stopped from shoving their unfair and illegal business practices down our throats. They think I will go sit in a corner feeling helpless and fuming like everybody else does. Wrong Comcast. I may fail, but I dont care how hard or long it takes, or who thinks Im crazy or delusional, or who is laughing at me right now thinking I am having a senior moment (Im just 59), I wont stop until Comcast knows exactly who I am and what I stand fir. Join me, dont allow Comoutcast to prevail. FIGHT! Contact me at pattiannddd@yahoo.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast Horrendous Service
I just finished talking to Mr. Steven (one of the supervisors in the Fort Myers Call Center). He was apologetic and informed me the same the information that I just described above (it will be now Wednesday before I see a person to come to my home. He also told me that he can see that I was not getting anything on my television. I requested for his supervisor to call me her name is Mrs. Leah Sampson. Once again the service that I paid for is not working but I am paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]