Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
from the treat-everyone-awful-equally dept
Last month we pointed out a fracas over Comcast lobbyists handing out special "VIP cards" to lawmakers in the hopes of letting them believe they were able to get special treatment from Comcast. As we noted at the time (and Comcast was quick to point out) pretty much all employees get these cards, which direct users to a special, one-time use phone number that allows a card recipient to jump over the rest of the plebeians in the pursuit of slightly-less substandard Comcast technical support. We're not treating power players differently, argued the company, because everybody can get these cards if they bitch enough.Fast forward a few weeks and a piece in the Washingtonian notes how a 2005 court filing indicates Comcast was keeping a list of VIP power players in the DC area that had Comcast service, and they did appear to get special service -- but only if their phone number was on record. Politicians, influential businessmen, civic leaders and other figures were tracked on a list, though Comcast again claims that none of these individuals received special treatment:
"A Comcast spokesperson declined to explain why such “VIP” lists were compiled or whether the company still maintains such lists. “Comcast does not and has not offered special service, perks or free upgrades to lawmakers or public officials,” the spokesperson said in a statement to Washingtonian."Except again, it's not entirely clear that this is actually true. Two anonymous sources spoke to The Consumerist to note that not only were VIPs tracked, but if they called Comcast using their on-record phone number, they did in fact get special treatment:
"One source worked for a company contracted by Comcast to maintain its automatic call distributor (ACD) system, which routes customer phone calls as they come in. This person says that the Comcast system was set up so that when one of the people on the VIP list called in, it would identify them by their phone number and jump them to the front of the line.Another, more recently-employed source confirms the first, telling The Consumerist that VIP treatment was tied to a logged phone number, and was unrelated to the VIP cards (which offered access to a one-use phone number at Comcast):
"My understanding was they were not told they were receiving preferential treatment,” says the source, "so in my opinion Comcast was deceiving them into thinking the service was better than it actually was."
"They say there were situations where the system wouldn’t identify VIP callers correctly because they called from a phone that was not associated with the account. But once the account was looked up, “we could see that status on their account and escalated them to the Platinum group,” says the source, who claims that frontline support people were never given the “We’ll make it right” cards that Comcast supposedly hands out to all employees."That sounds suspiciously like special treatment, though at the end of the day being escalated from horribly abysmal customer service to marginally-decent customer service (or just getting horribly abysmal customer service faster) is probably a wash. Comcast, for what it's worth, will only mechanically and repeatedly insist that nobody has ever received special treatment, despite the now growing evidence that numerous people -- at least in DC -- were able to get special treatment. So, without a deeper investigation, I suppose we'll just have to take Comcast's word for it that all of the company's customers get treated like shit equitably.
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, lobbying, politics, special treatment, vips, washington dc
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No damn account numbers. No Spanish language options. No waiting.
"This is Chris, how may I help you?"
For crying out loud, Comcast: with the billions earned, why can't everyone be addressed like this?
I hate capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can also vouch they are phone-number privileged. Another call to the same number from a different phone redirected me to the Queue of Hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The free-for-all capitalism we have now is a disgrace.
I blame the free-market brigade, who seem to believe that pretending the market is free will actually free it up and that leaving it to individuals and groups to transact their way out of trouble is the best way forward.
If you ever see that philosophy work, let me know. I prefer consumer advocacy backed by the force of law. Now that DOES work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, until the companies affected manage to buy out the ones writing the law anyway.
Still, it is a better idea than the 'just let the market manage itself' one, where they don't even have to bother buying out the lawmakers, they just do whatever they want regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you said is almost racist!
-----
Silliness aside, I'm willing to bet that corporate America will at some point attempt to pull the race card given the fact that race is a social ambiguity and can pretty much be applied to anything.
It's only a matter of time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I blame the free-market brigade
The reason why DC VIPs get special service is because the cable business (Comcast) is heavily regulated ("managed"), so these VIPs have a big influence on Comcast's business.
Maybe I'm missing your point. But if "the free-market brigade" got their way, the DC powers-that-be wouldn't be able to (a) push Comcast around, or (b) push around Comcast's competitors (making life easier for Comcast).
So then Comcast would have no reason to give the VIPs the red carpet treatment.
Am I missing something here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By its very design, it's a system of class and wealth, and so far, history proves this system never works long term. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not really sure what you mean by that statement. Free market capitalism has been around for as long as humans have traded goods and services. Free market capitalism is the default in the absence of a government. Governments fall, but supply and demand remains. The trading of goods and services continues unabated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I agree. First, there is an inherent tension between "capitalism" and the "free market". There can be no free market if capitalism is unrestrained, and the only way to hold capitalism in check is through some form of government. So "free market capitalism" cannot persist in the absence of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These types of regulations were more than likely imposed by the automotive industry themselves to stifle competition...pfft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By it's very definition free market capitalism only exits without government intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Laissez-faire capitalism is also a form of free market capitalism where the government only protects property rights and doesn't intervene in the market itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
And yes, the biggest problem with a free market economy is that it does promote monopolies and distribute most of the wealth to a few. We operate under a hybrid capitalistic economy that incorporates a few different flavors of capitalism and we still have those same problems.
I still see capitalism as the best choice, regardless. Obviously, feudalism isn't desired and large scale socialism experiments have not proven to be sustainable due to human nature.
Anyways, my main point was that the free market economy is the default without a government. People trade goods with each other at prices that both find to be fair and have done so throughout history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, true enough. But that means that the "free market" is like a unicorn: it's entirely mythical.
"my main point was that the free market economy is the default without a government."
I'm still unconvinced. It seems to me that the default market in the absence of government would be monopoly or oligopoly. Perhaps there would be a brief period of a true free market, but it wouldn't last long enough to matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not mythical and it does exist, even today. Just look to any black market that's out there. The markets for drugs, weapons, human trafficking, etc. are all examples of free market economies. They exist outside of regulations and without property rights.
It seems to me that the default market in the absence of government would be monopoly or oligopoly.
I'm not really a student of economics, so I could be completely wrong here, but I think the words "monopoly" and "oligopoly" are terms that describe the state of a particular market at a given time and are not really definitions of what kind of market it actually is.
Monopolies can exist in a free market economy, but it's still a free market economy as long as there is no intervention from government. Where it gets a little fuzzy in my mind is when the monopoly is, or becomes the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you think you can just pitch up and just out compete your competition on price you are going to end up with broken legs or dead.
I think Fendersons point here is that of course you can say these are free markets if you're using a strict definition of "any market without state involvement" but in real terms those markets are largely not 'free' in any meaningful way. When violent enforcement is used to retain market share then it's not the market that matters no matter how 'free' it otherwise is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, exactly. Black markets are not a free markets at all. Demonstrating this is easy: just try posing a competitive threat in someone else's territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are using "free" in different terms then economist do. "Free" in "free market" simply means free from government regulation and/or intervention. I'm not really sure how you are defining "free".
Actually, your demonstration really proves my point. The danger of bodily harm (or worse) in black markets proves that government intervention and property rights (ie: laws) do not exist there. It's a classic free market system and will always exist with or without governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean by "government"? If a business is being regulated by a criminal enterprise, then the criminal enterprise is the government.
If you don't agree with my definition of government, then you're right purely through a dictionary argument. But it doesn't actually lend any light to the discussion.
I define a "free market" as one in which people can exchange goods and services without coercion. Whether that coercion comes from an official government agency or not is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your definition isn't what economists use, so that's where our communication failure lies. Economist use "government or state intervention" in terms of regulations, economic policies, subsidies and things like that which effect the market as a whole. Criminal enterprises in black markets are not interested in such things. Their use of violence in black markets is to enforce their property rights (or to remove your property rights), since what they are doing is illegal and not under the protection of property rights enforced by a government.
My original comment to Violynne still stands. Free market capitalism is the default when governments fall. When the Roman Empire fell, people didn't just sit down in the dirt and die or band together to form a commune. They continued to trade their goods and services like always. The blacksmith still traded his wares for food, raw materials and physical protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps criminal enterprise are a form of government in some senses, but I disagree that they would be considered as such when talking about market systems. Unless they are enforcing regulations for the entire market, they are just a player within the market, looking out only for their own interests and not really caring about the health of the market as a whole.
At any rate, I've spent way too much time trying to decipher economics-speak (and close to giving myself a headache over it to boot). I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thanks for the thread - I'm always happy when a discussion motivates me into studying things outside my comfort zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOUR COMFORT ZONE DOES NOT CONCERN US. CARRY ON.
It's always amazing to me to watch you guys beg for permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOUR COMFORT ZONE DOES NOT CONCERN US. CARRY ON.
It's always amazing to me to watch you guys ask for permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sophistry. If it's not a free market, it's not capitalism. It's a mixed something or other. "Free market" presumes "market forces" (value has value) are encouraged to regulate the system; a la Wall St. (in theory).
I guess we should agree to disagree since I just argued the opposite. What part of "Laissez nous faire!" do you not understand? Your interpretation sounds more like the official regime's preference.
On the other hand, this's the first instance in my life in which I found the need for and used the word sophistry, so thanks for that! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not sophistry at all. The free market and capitalism are entirely different things, and each can exist in the absence of the other. A free market is the ability to engage in commerce without limitation. Capitalism is where trade and industry are owned by individuals (as opposed to the government). History (and the present day, in China) gives us numerous examples of having one without the other.
"Your interpretation sounds more like the official regime's preference."
I don't think so at all. I'm not advocating governmental control of all things. But I'm also not advocating corporate control of all things (which is our current form of capitalism).
I'm just saying that if you want a free market, then some regulation is logically necessary in order to have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those conspicuously avoid the third and most important option, one I'm especially attached to, individual control.
If that means police, national guard, or DoD, I'm in favour. If that means *congress*, I'm wary and against it on principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are aspects of capitalism that are very beneficial for everyone. However, as the saying goes, the dose makes the poison. Unregulated capitalism is toxic to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, don't blame the implementation. It must be capitalism itself which is flawed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You two are beginning to pee me off. Don't go making me go Fred Bastiat on you if you know what's good for you.
TL;DR In ideas like these, there's always the dictionary definition, the popular understanding, the most demonstrably wrong end, and the correct end, with a lot of gray in the middle.
There's nothing wrong with capitalism. Our 21st century implementation of it sucks (is fatally flawed). What's your definition of capitalism? 1% vs. the rest, or "Legalize corporate financial rape!", or Tea Party, or NeoCons, or what? I tend to hang out with Adam Smith, Bastiat and von Mises.
I wish you guys would all vote me emperor. I could show you the way. Unfortunately, this's somewhat off-topic for a Comcast related story. :-)
[thanks again Mike!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except when it dictates nearly all legislation being passed by congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need to think deeper. The crap that goes on in congress today has nothing to do with capitalism.
The USA needs an electoral authority, as has Canada. Gerrymandering and voter registration crap would disappear, and your democracy would stand a chance.
No, please don't try to slap me with that "the us is a republic" crap. It's BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An idea is not responsible for the people who hold it. Guns don't kill people, ...
Equals working together with equals without interference from corrupt power mongers could work today with no help from the overhead of gov't. The problem is the mere existence of said corrupt power mongers which are enabled by gov't.
Predators exist in all target rich environments. We need to revive the concepts of ethics and morality, and make them civic duty. Then the predators and their schemes will stand out as antithetical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most if not all politicians are corporate scum in one form or another which is most evident if you consider that over 90% of the policies passed in the last 20+ years have been to no benefit to the public.
So what's the point of electing representatives?
We have the technology to create a true and direct democracy...But that'll never happen.
I mean after all, if you look at the charters of the first 13 states you'll see that they were initially considered corporations.
In other words, nothing has changed except ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are usually other choices that those who stand on a major party platform, and if enough people voted for them it would change politics, including convincing the parties that they need to listen to the people. Voting for the best of the alternatives to the major party candidates is a much better idea that not voting. Convincing people who do not vote, to vote for the candidate that best represents their real views is more likely to change politics than not voting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is the most common mistake that everyone makes. The very fact that people are 'persuaded' to vote for people they don't want to vote for is a serious flaw in the voting system and is the reason why we keep sending the wrong people to DC to represent which ever state they're affiliated with.
Having no vote, should be considered a vote. I mean who would you rather vote for, Hitler or Stalin? AND YOU HAVE TO PICK OTHERWISE YOU'RE LEFT OUT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The systematic genocide of 6 million people or the starvation of 30 million Russians?
I guess I'll go with the lessor of two evils and pick Hitler!"
Sure, that's taking it to the extreme, but that's pretty much what our voting system boils down to if taken to that length...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would love to the the US have something like a "no confidence" vote that had actual ramifications. Such as forcing a whole new election if "no confidence" wins.
Or, at the very least, some sort of instant runoff system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wholeheartedly support what you are suggesting. Add some "candidate" that symbolizes people do not approve anything that is going on. Now what to do for the further ramifications is a question I can't even imagine how to respond with my current knowledge on politics and society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but doing so accomplishes nothing except for concentrating decision-making power into the hands of fewer people. It does not make a coherent political statement. There are, after all, a ton of nonpolitical reasons why people don't vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which all should be subsumed under "we don't trust you and believe the system's rigged against us."
I've no respect for those currently running things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you expand a bit further on this?
I'm curious to your perspective...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: "Our (USA) electoral system is SO !@#$ed up, ..." ... fill in the blanks.
You've been hoodwinked. It's not a fair game anymore. The Democrats and Republicans have been in utter control of the electoral process for decades. Google gerrymandering.
Not voting is just spitting on a corrupt and irrelevant system which is out to capitalize (Hah!) on our naivete'. I'm not goin' along with the pleasant fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not voting has no chance of changing the system, while voting for alternative candidates has a chance of changing the system. The alternative means of change is letting the system deteriorate until some tyrant organizes a revolution, which is hardly likely to improve the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, depending on the State you reside in, having a no vote of confidence could mean no vote at all which in turn is swept under the rug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you don't/can't trust any of them, how can you effectively choose who ~MIGHT~ be the 'best alternative'? Hell, I'm pretty sure that's what got Obama in... and look where that's gone.
On the rare occasion I'm forced to vote by friends or family, I deliberately spoil my ballot to show my total distaste for the the available 'candidates', often after attempts of looking up their policy standings either leaves me retching at the insincerity, or groaning as all I find are attacks on OTHER POLITICIANS morals in some vain attempt at 'Sure I bring nothing to the table, but you REALLY can't trust them!'
For people to want to vote, they have to believe their vote is WORTH something, will DO something. More and more, it has simply been a way for people to choose which lying dick wad is going to ruin the country further over the next 4 years failing to clean up the last guy's mess while simultaneously trying to create their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But instead people stopped caring and just ignored it. The more you ignore it the worse it gets until your either fighting back or being rounded up into camps because your views are different than someone else's, save they have the power and influence to lock away those they don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Vernita Green
3. Budd
4. Elle Driver
5. BILL
This is a list of people that Beatrix Kiddo is no more likely to kill than anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Spokesman Spoke and Spoke the Truth
The key word is OR -- if you change either occurrence to AND, the statement becomes false.
Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chutzpah
It takes amazing gall or stupidity to deny something in the same sentence which proves the very thing you are denying. Being tracked on a list IS special treatment. Replace "special" with "preferential" and there could have been plausible deniability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut up Slaves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, the connection to Comcast collaboration/complicity/facilitation of illegal spying is thin. I just wanted to re-flag the issue for everyone - including the Comcast marketing hacks that will probably read this and report back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've had Comcast Reps. ask me, "Do you want me to schedule a technician?". I tell them hell no, that costs money!
Then I hang up the phone and wait for the rest of my neighbors to complain about their TV and internet service cutting in and out from weak signal strength from the telephone pole lines. I let my neighbors get charged the $60+ service technician rates for a problem that has nothing to do with their home wiring or equipment.
Then I wait a couple more days and finally see the Comcast bucket truck come out and start adjusting the signal strength on the telephone pole lines for the entire neighborhood.
I'm not getting charged for that crap. I feel bad my neighbors are getting screwed over, but somebody has to get screwed over before the Comcast technicians can finally figure out what the real problem is.
I've also had technicians come to my house and accuse me of causing the entire neighborhood's problems, because I'm the only one in the neighborhood who still has a strong enough signal for my cable modem to work. Everyone else in the neighborhood lost their TV and cable modem signal.
I still had a signal because I disconnected all the splitters in my house and ran the coax cable directly from pole drop line, directly to my cable internet modem. Barely giving me enough signal strength to sync the with Cable Modem Termination System at Comcast's headend.
The technician said, "Everyone else's service in the neighborhood isn't working, but I see your still pulling down bandwidth." No shit Sherlock, I had to disconnect all the cable line splitters in my house to do it, because the signal strength from the pole lines is too weak to run more than one service or use coax splitters.
I hate dealing with Comcast. I hate dealing with Comcast technicians even more. Most of them I've meet are assholes who have no idea what they're doing, and they try to blame me for whatever problems they're experiencing. I don't let them enter my house anymore. They're abusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]