Behind the Veil Part 6: Comcast Informs Employer Of Complaining Customer
from the screw-job dept
In case you thought the stream of complaints from former and current Comcast customers and employees had ceased, they haven't. With all the fallout surrounding several customer service flops, you'd think that the company would be particularly on its toes in terms of building up good will and avoiding more such stories. The latest story, however, is quite a doozy: it is alleged that Comcast contacted a complaining subscriber's place of business, which resulted in him being fired.
Let's get the service issues out of the way first. Over the course of a year, a man named Conal had had near-constant issues with his Comcast service: everything from being charged for hardware he'd never ordered, sent hardware he never wanted, not getting bills because Comcast misspelled his last name, service visits that failed to activate set-top boxes, and increases in pricing. He attempted to work with Comcast's customer service, at one point asking to cancel service, but instead being sold on free upgrades to keep his business (AKA, the Comcast customer service MO). Eventually, fed up, he returned all the equipment that had actually been delivered to him and, because he is an accountant, prepared a spreadsheet with all the incorrect charges and service issues. Instead of rectifying the charges, Comcast immediately sent his account to collections, despite the fact that the charges weren't past due. When customer service failed to address any of the above, he decided to go above them entirely and called the office of Comcast's Controller. After getting a call back from another customer service rep instead, he called the Controller's office again.
During this call, he says that he mentioned that Comcast’s billing and accounting issues should probably be investigated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), a private-sector oversight operation. This ultimately led to two service calls where no one ever showed up and no explanations were given. But something did happen. Just not anything good.That not good action by Comcast was for someone to put a call into a partner at Conal's accounting firm. The Comcast employee suggested that Conal had name-dropped the accounting firm as a way to get better service, since the accounting firm had done some minor work for Comcast in the past. This led to the company investigating the situation for ethical violations by Conal and ultimately firing him due to, according to his exit interview, a summary of his communications with Comcast provided directly by Comcast. Conal was never allowed to see the summary, nor were his requests for recorded conversations ever honored. Comcast even acknowledges calling the employer.
In response to a letter from Conal’s lawyer — he has not filed a lawsuit, but it’s not out of the question — Comcast’s Senior Deputy General Counsel admits that the company did contact Conal’s employer but says that Conal “is not in a position to complain that the firm came to learn” about his dispute with Comcast.Well, okay then. Look, this is a one-sided report form a clearly-jilted ex-customer of Comcast's, so it might be quite easy to dismiss it as unreliable. And, hey, there's a chance we're not getting the whole story here. On the other hand: Comcast. The way the company has conducted business, particularly over the past few years, lends itself to being criticized and to the assumption that these kinds of stories are more true than false. Does anyone really believe the company is incapable of doing exactly as Conal accuses? I sure don't, because I've been paying attention to the Comcast stories we've written about in the past. And the company's tone-deaf responses to these issues don't help either.
We reached out to Comcast to ask whether it’s company policy to contact customers’ employers. No one answered that question, but a rep for Comcast did give a brief statement.Yawn. Thanks Comcast. I'm sure we'll be seeing you again in a future post.
“Our customers deserve the best experience every time they interact with us,” reads the statement. Comcast says it has previously apologized to Conal, but adds “we will review his lawyer’s letter and respond as quickly as possible.”
Finally, after the story started to go viral, Comcast put up a public apology blog post:
What happened with Mr. O’Rourke's service is completely unacceptable. Despite our attempts to address Mr. O’Rourke’s issues, we simply dropped the ball and did not make things right. Mr. O’Rourke deserves another apology from us and we’re making this one publicly. We also want to clarify that nobody at Comcast asked for him to be fired.This is from Comcast's brand spanking new VP of Customer Experience. Perhaps the title they should have given him is Chief Apologizer.
We’re also determined to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with his service, figure out what went wrong at every point along the way, and fix any underlying issues
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
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
PR to English translation
'The story got out and we're looking bad(again). That's not how it was supposed to happen.'
Despite our attempts to address Mr. O’Rourke’s issues, we simply dropped the ball and did not make things right.
'We got him fired, that was supposed to shut him up and be the end of it.'
Mr. O’Rourke deserves another apology from us and we’re making this one publicly.
'Absolutely no-one, including me, believes we're sincere of course, but we hope by at least pretending we can just brush this one under the rug.'
We also want to clarify that nobody at Comcast asked for him to be fired.
'Because as long as we don't directly ask that he be fired, it doesn't count.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR to English translation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR to English translation
'Next time, no half-measures. From now on, no survivors, no witnesses.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These stories don't get people fired up and so pissed off to cancel their service. They send a different message, which is precisely why Comcast is sitting back, laughing its ass off, with the notion they can do no wrong.
And they're right until customers do start canceling their subscriptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that they have a monopoly on certain places and they are looking into expand it with the merger and ramp up the ass fuckery against their customers by fighting tooth and nail against the reclassification.
Yeah, everything better for the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who, by the way, charged me for several months after I moved into my house. Even though I never had their service. And, refused to understand the concept that just because they "activated my service" they can't just charge me for something I never asked for.
It took MONTHS to get through that, to get the charges dropped, and to get the service that I never even had deactivated. It was almost to the point of having to go to court over it.
And I never even HAD AT&T. I mean, AT&T screwed me over, and I never even had their service. I can't imagine what it would be like if I did.
So, give my money to terrible corporation A or terrible corporation B? Or, what? Go without Internet? There is no option here to drop the bad guys. There is no choice to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You could always give your money to terrible corporation C or D - mobile internet. Sure it's more expensive and slower, but it's a "choice".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What I am currently looking into is getting a business line to my home. Customer service is better, and uptime is more reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A few years ago, we switched to AT&T because the only other game in town was just as bad, only they charged more.
I hate AT&T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In any case I'm glad I don't need to use their services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's foolish to suggest that everyone who tries to cancel will get fired. This is a singular event with very unusual circumstances.
Unless you're just making a joke, in which case proceed with the hilarity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is from Comcast's brand spanking new VP of Customer Experience.
Does he have horns and speak in a deep, terrifying, sarcastic tone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get things right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get things right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get things right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get things right?
Possibly. And such a contract could say almost anything so this is all just speculation. I would hope the contract would specify that the employee would have some kind of opportunity to challenge or at least see the reasons he's being dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get things right?
"I would hope the contract would specify that the employee would have some kind of opportunity to challenge or at least see the reasons he's being dismissed."
The contract doesn't have to spell this out. If either party alleges a contractual violation, the whole thing can go to court (or, as many contracts specify, an "independent" arbitrator) and each side can make their case. Worst case, all would be revealed there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get things right?
Honest question... I'm just wondering if these places do actually exist and if employers do have that kind of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get things right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get things right?
The only way for him to get a wrongful termination resolution is to get Comcast to admit they slandered him to PWC so there was no ethics violation, just a big account lying to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get things right?
If he had no contract, then he's out of luck. The employer could fire him because they just felt like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hate em and leave em
$500 lifetime Tivo DVR box no monthly charges
Netflix and Amazon for entertainment
No More Comcast or any pay tv service. Cut the cord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hate em and leave em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hate em and leave em
Neighbor's WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hate em and leave em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: However ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: However ...
And that is something Comcast can't have with the proposed merger on the horizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, have I got a solution for you. Simply give their employer a call and have them fired! Voilà - problem solved. Now you can go back to enjoying your fruity umbrella drink on one of your really huge yachts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already have ttwo of these
They are called the Pres and Vice Pres of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't make me defend Comcast
The first part of this story is Comcast as we know it. Atrocious service (even more craptastic than normal), erroneous billing, and a host of problems trying to resolve it.
This is what resulted (after public pressure, of course) in the public apology from Comcast. This is what they're apologizing for.
The second part of this story is where things get a bit dicey and prompt me to do something I really feel terrible doing: Defending Comcast.
Conal O'Rourke works for PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). PWC provides accounting advisory services to Comcast. O'Rourke, after spending months trying to resolve Comcast's problems with his service and account, emailed a Comcast employee a copy of a letter he said he might send (but had not yet sent) to the Comcast comptroller. In that letter, he said:
Full letter here (sorry about big URL):
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1309773-gmail-electronic-copy-mr-lawrence-j-salva.html
S ome time later, his problems still not being resolved, he called the Comptroller of Comcast, yelled at his secretary, and again mentioned going to the PCAOB.
This is all according to O'Rourke's description of what's happened. The only thing in question is whether he at any time identified himself to Comcast as an employee of PWC. Comcast says he did. He says he didn't.
But that might not actually be relevant to alleged violations of PWC's ethical standards (although it would be relevant to their learning about alleged violations):
An employee of PWC (Comcast's accounting advisory firm) threatened to contact Deloitte (Comcast's external auditor) with allegations of systematic accounting problems, and threatening to contact the PCAOB. Any accounting firm would likely view that as a probable ethical violation. It's hugely inappropriate.
O'Rourke was angry and frustrated. This was entirely justified. Comcast is awful, and their customer service in his case was especially bad. But in his anger, he did something that, as a PWC employee, he should not have done. Not because it was strategically unwise, but because it was ethically very very questionable. As an accounting professional with 20+ years' experience, he should have known better. And unfortunately now he's suffering for that, even though it was Comcast that started all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
As I understand it, I could complain to PCAOB about accounting malfeasance on Comcast's part. If we believe O'Rourke's story, he was approaching Comcast as such a private citizen, not as an accountant at PWC. Presumably the issue is that, as a PWC employee, he would have access to (potentially) damaging information that he could then hand to PCAOB.
Would it make any difference from an ethics standpoint if 1) he didn't know that Comcast was a PWC client and/or 2) he never told Comcast he was part of PWC (meaning he was acting as a private citizen)? Or does his contacting PCAOB at all, ever, constitute an ethics violation that he should have known about?
Thanks for the interesting counter-hysteria information (though I, too, enjoying bashing comcast). Did you post something similar on Ars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
And, yes, a few people (including myself) have posted something similar on Ars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
So yes, it would be a dubious thing if he found violations and only threatened to report them, but that's not what happened.
Additionally, he never said anything along the lines of bringing his employer into the matter, or anything available to him through that employer. Thus, he is not using the employer's resources on this personal matter.
Finally, the only reasonable objection would be to have this employee helping with Comcast's accounting. But I hardly think they can't give him something else to do, something not related to Comcast. (I suspect that if you have service with Comcast, you can't work on their file, then they'd run out of people who can work on their file quickly.)
Oh, right: IANAA. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
Thanks for your replies.
-The Original AC replier, sock-puppeting under a new ip address!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast
bwa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa
you're funny: AS IF nearly ALL the big acctg firms are not in bed with their clients and doing ALL THEY CAN to avoid ANY accountability, cook the books, and bend the laws like an iphone...
wait, bend like a cooked spaghetti noodle, i meant...
no, this had NOTHING to do with maintaining their 'sterling' (*cough*bullshit*cough*) reputation; and ALL about NOT upsetting clients with possible investigations that will NO DOUBT reveal slime...
but the thing is, since the (in)justice system is effectively a handmaiden of Big Korporations, i doubt PWC/comcast had ANY reason to be really scared...
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
now, grampa, tell us the story about how the war on terror is to protect us po' schlubs at home, that's a real funny one, too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the lesson to take from this is that whistleblowing is your only option :)
Incidentally, I still side with the customer, at least until Comcast releases full copies of all the conversations in which he alleged irregularities and a full transcript of exactly what Comcast sent to the accounting firm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His previous employer should be investigated for helping Comcast bury the damning evidence of their accounting discrepancies by terminating the man that discovered them. That he had worked for an accounting company is even more damning of his previous employer's involvement.
Likely won't matter though, because in America the corporations buy the outcomes they want and laws don't apply to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]