Yet Another Horrible Comcast Customer Service Experience Goes Viral
from the time-to-trot-out-that-new-customer-service-vp-again dept
Comcast's customer service troubles are well documented, with bad customer service experiences going viral every few months, requiring Comcast CEO Brian Roberts to trot out of his corner office to promise to do better. Just a few months ago, Comcast also excitedly hired a new "Senior VP of Customer Experience," namedAs the guy notes, even though he had the earlier call recorded, a Comcast customer "shouldn't have to record every interaction" with Comcast customer service just to get the company to live up to its own promises.
But, of course, it doesn't matter. The customer service rep this week insists that what the original person told him was simply incorrect, and she no longer has access to that kind of promotion. Towards the end of the call, however, she offers him a different promotion for 12 months (this is a little unclear, because at one point she says until October), and he points out that this new rep is making the exact same kind of promise -- of a certain price for 12 months -- which is pretty ridiculous since he knows he can't trust it.
As the story started getting more and more attention, someone from "Comcast Executive Customer Relations" called the guy, but refused to consent to being recorded -- so the customer refused to continue with the call. That person eventually emailed him, and appears to offer to extend the original deal for another 9 months, but it's still not entirely clear -- and no matter what, it's ridiculous that any customer should need to go through this sort of process.
I'm sure that should this story go even more viral, Brian Roberts and Charlie Herrin will emerge from wherever they're hiding to act contrite and insist that this sort of thing is unacceptable, but that's clearly not true. And, no, it's not -- as Roberts likes to insist -- because the company is so large and has so many customers. These sorts of failings happen so regularly that it is clearly part of the corporate culture to lie and abuse customers. This is just the latest example, which looks especially bad given the fact that both calls were recorded.
Update: We, originally, accidentally said that Smit was the new hire for customer experience, but it was actually Charlie Herrin. Smit is Herrin's boss.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Senior VP of Customer Experience"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was my comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Senior VP of Customer Experience"
Comcast users in various parts of the country have already gotten (or may soon get) a lovely holiday present from their ISP—a seemingly inexplicable increase in the cable modem rental fee, from $8 to $10 per month.
arstechnica.com/business/2014/12/comcast-just-upped-its-cable-modem-rental-fee-from-8-to-10-pe r-month/
Apparently a 12-month "contract" is no such thing whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Senior VP of Customer Experience"
* Modem rental fee went from $8 -> $10
* Broadcast TV fee went from $1.50 -> $3.25
* Additional digital adapters (required for every TV) went from $1.99 -> $2.99
* Regional sports fee added of $1
All told, since I have two extra adapters, my bill's gone up $6.75 a month in nothing but bogus fees. The digital adapter fees are really a kick in the face. Since Comcast encrypts the signal now, you have to have those to watch the cable TV you pay for on any set. The only provide one for free (a full cable box, which I have YET to get to work despite swapping it three times last year alone). For any additional TVs you get to pay nearly $36 a year to watch cable TV on them. This is complete and total bullshit.
My hope is that they're becoming so unpopular that a couple of Attorneys General in various states will decide investigating Comcast to grandstand is more valuable than Comcast's campaign donations. They'd make a great target, the public would love any AG that took them to task!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Senior VP of Customer Experience"
Moved in July and FIOS tried to claim that their router is now both a router and a modem so that they can charge that juicy modem rental fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't this a position that only came into being after the last six dozen major Comcrap fiascoes?
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, there are still a lot of states where it is totally legal for you to secretly record conversations that you are taking part in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends on what state you're in. Some states require the permission of one person in the conversation, some states require all persons.
But if you're recording a call in a state where it is not allowed, that is a criminal offense (wiretapping), not a civil one. You can go to prison for it. It wasn't that long ago when someone did exactly this: recorded a call to catch the perpetrator of fraud and went to jail for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are the person talking to Comcast you are not a third party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_wiretapping_law
I could be wrong (the wording here isn't that clear) but it seems like this law refers specifically to eavesdroppers (third parties that are 'overhearing') and not to the parties participating in the conversation. Eavesdropping is not typically something someone participating in the conversation is doing (though it says using an eavesdropping device. Perhaps something that allows a third party to listen to the conversation).
Regardless
"The law was ruled unconstitutional in 2014 by the Illinois Supreme Court. The law defined an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means."[1]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutional restrictions apply to the *government*
The (waning) doctrine of prohibiting illegally gathered evidence is based on the 4th amendment and applies to *government* agents. A recording by a customer acting on their own, even if recorded in contravention of "two party consent" state wiretapping laws, can be used by the government in a criminal trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The line I use is "I live in a state where all parties to a phone call must consent to a phone call being recorded. Your automated phone system notified me that your company may be recording this call, and I'd hate to have you commit a felony, so I hereby state for the record that this call may be recorded."
Under state law where I live (Washington state), stating that a call may be recorded is sufficient notice to make a recording legal -- anyone who stays on the line after that is consenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meaning I don't have to tell Comcast I'm recording them as long as I'm talking on the phone, and it is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
That underlying issue is, quite simply, lack of meaningful competition.
Competition in the market doesn't solve all problems, but it's probably the simplest and least rickety potential solution to many of the problems in the US Internet-access market. Unfortunately, it's not at all clear how to get there from here, or even necessarily exactly what "there" would look like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suddenlink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawa laws laws
never advise any business you ar recording them, the should at all times be honest in their dealings with you and you have the right to protect yourself even if the law says you are not allowed to protect yourself.
Why can i not record incoming calls or even outgoing calls on my mobile, on virtually any mobile?????
At least the internet has levelled the playing field if you can get noticed, sadly there are thousands if not millions that just don't knwo how to get their complaints onto the front page of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawa laws laws
Different states have different laws regarding recording conversations like that. In some states, as long as one of the parties(you), knows that the call is being recorded, that's enough to make it legal. In others, both(you and them) might need to be informed that the call is being recorded for it to be legal.
Not quite sure how that works if the two sides are in different states, with different laws, but I would assume at that point it defaults to the strictest law of the two, that being the 'both'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
Bewarned, though, that some states also require periodic reminders during the call that it is being recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawa laws laws
Typically, when you call, you get the recorded message "To ensure customer service, this call may be recorded or monitored." At which point, I say, "Thank you, I will." Could that be considered acknowledgement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lawa laws laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recording calls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2qx4yw/psa_comcast_just_upped_its_cable_modem_rental_fee /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most commonly, the laws bar SECRET recording, which is to say "recording of which one party is not aware." Such laws do not require CONSENT. They require KNOWLEDGE.
This is why--for example--I am perfectly entitled to stuff a TV camera in your face and ask you about Obama. You may not want to be recorded, but you are well aware that you ARE being recorded.... so if you don't want to be captured on tape, you can opt not to speak.
I occasionally record people against their will. the conversation goes pretty much like this:
A) [recorder on] I am recording this conversation now, and am informing you of that fact.
B) I do not want to be recorded. You do not have my consent to record me.
A) OK, I understand your position and your objection is noted. As I was saying about that issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incompetant service agents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]