Thou Shall Not Browse: Comcast Refuses Service Call To Chicago Church Out Of Fear

from the holy-shit dept

Fri, Nov 13th 2015 6:15am — Timothy Geigner

Our Facebook, who art on the internet, mashup be thy name. My question's one, will Comcast come, to our church as connectivity has ended? Give us this day, at least one technician, and forgive us our addresses, as we forgive those whose customer service sucks. And leave us not without our Netflix, but deliver us from downtime, amen.

This, I propose, might need to be adopted as a modernized propitiation by at least one church on Chicago's South Side, and offered to the regulation-creating internet lord, Comcast. That's because, as reported by a rather well-known preacher here in my beloved city, Comcast refused to send a service technician to work on a service issue because the neighborhood was way too scary.

On Wednesday, Father Michael Pfleger said that Comcast will not come out and fix the Internet connection at St. Sabina Church because of the neighborhood violence in Englewood. Classes in the St. Sabina computer lab were disrupted in the morning, not by violence outside, but by Internet problems that made doing anything online slow or impossible. The director called Comcast and set up a repair appointment for the afternoon only to have it canceled five minutes later.

“They told me due to the violence in the area, the increased violence in the area, that they were not dispatching any technicians into the area,” said Phil Hunter, who's the Director of the St. Sabina Community Employment Center.

Now, Father Pfleger is a notorious figure here in Chicago, and nationally, for being quite vocal on racial issues, to the point that he can occasionally come off as being ridiculous. Case in point was his insistence that Hillary Clinton freaked out about Barack Obama running against her because she thought she shouldn't have to compete with a black person (whatever you think about Clinton, Pfleger doesn't have mind-reading powers such as this). But we can leave his reputation aside for the moment, because Comcast didn't deny the accusation. Instead, Comcast insisted that it was cancelling all kinds of appointments in the area due to safety issues. Think about that: Comcast is happy to collect money from internet service customers, but not service them. In a city, mind you, that is carved up by ISPs for exclusive areas to such a degree that it's almost funny.

So, how frightened of the violence was Comcast? Well, this ought to give you some idea.

Well guess what after Facebook goes off and calls and media respond...SUDDENLY, calls from Comcast come and two... Posted by Father Michael Pfleger on Wednesday, November 11, 2015

So, either Chicago's violence problem was suddenly solved in a matter of hours, or Comcast cares more about PR than it does the safety of its technicians, which it had invoked only hours previous as to why it wouldn't come. It's frankly difficult to think of a worse tack Comcast could have chosen to follow: refuse service calls due to safety, get smacked with backlash, ignore safety concerns and do the service call. As Father Pfleger rightly points out, not everyone in the neighborhood is a preacher with a platform.

But that's Comcast for you. They're only answering your prayers for internet service that you're paying for if you've got those media indulgences, I guess...

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: broadband, chicago, repairs, service, violence
Companies: comcast

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Machin Shin (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 5:36am

Recording interactions
This is the kind of thing that has me seriously planning on recording any calls I make to ISP tech support lines. Sometimes the way to get the support you need is to light a fire under them with bad PR. I just wish I has some recordings of my past dealings with ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:18am

The Overlord's Prayer.

Kinda has a ring to it... in a not so good way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:26am

And when asked why they had not paid their Concast bill, they replied that the neighborhood was too scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GrammarDude, 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:37am

GrammarDude
What is a worse tack ? Like a staple that is even more staplier than another staple? Perhaps you meant worse tact or tactic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: GrammarDude
  When sailing your "tack" is the setting for your sails and in general the direction you are travelling. In this case a "worse tack" means a "worse direction"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re: GrammarDude
    Oh, man, why didn't I read this comment before replying? I totally could have played this off like I was some kind of yacht king as opposed to someone who occasionally makes typo mistakes....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 13 Nov 2015 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: GrammarDude
      I'm pretty sure nobody would have believed that anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: GrammarDude
      I totally could have played this off like I was some kind of yacht king as opposed to someone who occasionally makes typo mistakes.
      
      As my former mentor (editing a newsletter) told me, "You can't catch 'em all." Proofread (consciously, eyes open, expand contractions; do they work?), and you're absolved of the ones you don't catch.
      
      Besides, in the 21st century with the majority of posters fat-fingering on cellphones instead of keyboards, it's pointless complaining about typos. They're fighting damned-autocorrect, et al. Typos? Ptheh.
      
      At least you're not in Detroit (though I hear Kingston's nice).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 7:24am
    
    Re: Re: GrammarDude
    Starboard tack: the wind comes onboard from the right side of the boat as one faces forward, sails are out to port.
    
    Port tack: the wind comes onboard from the left side of the boat as one faces forward, sails are out to starboard. Port was formerly known as larboard.
    
    Starboard tack boats have the right of way over port tack boats and this is often claimed by the starboard boats helmsman screaming “STARBOARD”, which at times has little effect and results in a collision.
    
    STARBOARD…
    
    Now, where were we?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re: GrammarDude
    Indeed... if you set the wrong tack, all the wind goes out of your sails.
    
    It's a pretty old colloquialism for someone calling himself GrammarDude not to know...
    
    "tough row to hoe" is talking about potatoes.
    
    "toeing the line" is talking about a footrace.
    
    Just to explain a few other old colloquialisms that often get butchered by people who assume someone just misspelled a word.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: GrammarDude
  It was supposed to be "track", but apparently I made a typo, which admittedly is way worse than 9/11, so I appreciate you pointing it out....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: GrammarDude
  Tact is sensitivity in social situations. A tack is a course or an approach (the word has nautical origins). When switching courses or taking a different approach, one changes tack, not tact.
  
  Tact often appears in place of tack. Presumably some people think of it as short for tactic, which is synonymous with tack in some contexts. This is understandable given how rare tack is, but tact is not conventionally short for tactic, and, fairly or not, phrases like change tact are generally considered wrong by people who pay attention to these things.
  http://grammarist.com/usage/tack-tack/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkey, 13 Nov 2015 @ 10:49am
    
    Re: Re: GrammarDude with a corn cob up his arse
    Pull it out man, slowly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 6:56am

To be fair, I wouldn't go to that neighborhood either. I imagine someone was threatened to be fired over this once the PR took a hit. I probably would have let them fire me or walked out myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 7:13am

Not Just Comcast
This happened a couple months ago: Bright House Ends Service at Tymber Skan After Technician Held at Gunpoint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 13 Nov 2015 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Not Just Comcast
  There's a big difference between refusing to service a specific apartment complex after one of their employees was robbed at pistol-point and refusing to enter an entire neighbourhood because something might happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: Not Just Comcast
  Perhaps their technicians should be accompanied by armed guards.
  
  Maybe this is a response to the frustration that some people are facing against ISP's and cable companies ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 13 Nov 2015 @ 7:27am

Fear
If I were as evil as Comcast, I'd be afraid to go to a church too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 8:15am

If you don't come and fix my internet, I'm going to come to your office to kick your ass. Sometime tomorrow between 10am and 6pm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  So now they have to choose. They either risk the possibility of being attacked while making a repair or they risk the possibility of being attacked for not making the repair. If they're really motivated to avoid being attacked this would motivate them to make the repair. They must now weigh their options.
  
  But I guess this confirms their bias. Since you're from the neighborhood they claim is dangerous and you are threatening them with violence perhaps you're a good example of the type of person that lives in this neighborhood confirming that the fear of this neighborhood is justified.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capt. Obvious, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  If I miss the window and need to reschedule, I will pay you $25
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 8:21am

'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
There's likely to be a hidden racist element here. Something I found amusing was that the Black taxi drivers I talked to feared going into Mexican neighborhoods, while the Mexican taxi drivers were equally fearful of black neighborhoods.

Although racially-biased, the fear of armed robbery (or worse) is not illogical. Driving a taxi is statistically more dangerous than being a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
  Racism comes in many forms. For instance the government can regulate against businesses that wish to base their hiring practices on race (with limited results of course) but what they can't easily regulate against are clients/customers that base their shopping habits and where they spend their money on race. For instance if you refuse to go to stores owned by someone of a particular race what can the government realistically do? but your refusal to have an agent or patronize a business of a particular race can result in employment/income discrimination, essentially as a customer you are basing your hiring practices on race (since customers are the ones hiring businesses and business owners).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
    "For instance if you refuse to go to stores owned by someone of a particular race what can the government realistically do?"
    
    If it involves Jews or Israel specifically, there are laws against such consumer boycotts, and even a federal agency, the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, to enforce these laws.
    
    For instance, if you were to walk into a store and tell the clerk, "I refuse to buy any more Widgets made in Israel, they're garbage. Please show me only American-made ones from now on!" -- then by law the store would be required to snitch on you to the Feds, or face draconian penalties.
    
    Yes, this is (slightly) off-topic, but was just to show that there are even more laws against the right to choose -and federal agencies to enforce them- than most people even realize.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 11:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
      While I'm not an organ donor someone once raised the question (I forgot exactly what the question was, something to do with why aren't you one). My answer was I would consider being an organ donor if I can boycott any non-organ donors from ever receiving my organs.
      
      That statement was somewhat targeted at Jews (though I didn't mention it). Jews claim that, according to their religion, it's OK to receive an organ but it's not OK to donate their organs. To be an organ donor I wouldn't want my organs going to anyone like that. While I'm Christian I find them using religion selfishly like that unacceptable. Not that I have anything against Jews, I wouldn't mind my organs going to a Jewish organ donor. In fact I suspect the Jews may even change their stance on refusing to be organ donors if people refused to give organs to non-organ donors. Not having the option to refuse my organs going to a non-organ donor (even if it's because they're religiously against it, even if they're Jewish) is probably what made me decide I do not want to be an organ donor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
        "My answer was I would consider being an organ donor if I can boycott any non-organ donors from ever receiving my organs."
        
        It would seem like the shortage of organ donations would easily be solved simply by requiring transplant recipients to have previously signed up as donors.
        
        Tangential to the topic of organ donation, I gave up any notions of donating my body to science after learning that many cadavers are not even used for medicine or constructive science. They are sold to the military for weapons testing, such as to aid in the development of more lethal weaponry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tqk (profile), 14 Nov 2015 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
        Not having the option to refuse my organs going to a non-organ donor (even if it's because they're religiously against it, even if they're Jewish) is probably what made me decide I do not want to be an organ donor.
        
        So, in order to stick it to a tiny minority of non-donors, you're willing to also refuse it for all others. I believe that's called, "cutting off your nose in order to spite your face."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2015 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
        So, in order to stick it to a tiny minority of non-donors
        
        No, he wants to stick it to all non-donors. Which I'm pretty sure is most people.
        
        I believe that's called, "cutting off your nose in order to spite your face."
        
        That only applies to hurting yourself in order to also hurt someone else. Not donating his organs doesn't hurt him, as he will already be dead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tqk (profile), 14 Nov 2015 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
        Not donating his organs doesn't hurt him, as he will already be dead.
        
        You forget the real impetus behind donating. It's "doing good", or possibly being known to have done good (reputation mgmt. :-). He loses out on that having done good by preferring instead to penalize others for not doing good. That's shallow at best. Not only that, but he's tarring whole populations (eg. Jews), and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of diametrically opposite viewpoints within the Jewish population. No population of individuals is monolithic.
        
        I suppose this discussion could devolve into a discussion of game theory, and perhaps it should.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2015 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'danger' is in the eyes of the beholder
        He loses out on that having done good by preferring instead to penalize others for not doing good.
        
        No argument there, I'm just not sure the aphorism "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" applies.
        
        That's shallow at best.
        
        It's following more of a tit-for-tat approach rather than doing good for the sake of doing good.
        
        Not only that, but he's tarring whole populations (eg. Jews), and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of diametrically opposite viewpoints within the Jewish population.
        
        I got the impression he wouldn't want anyone unwilling to donate organs to get his organs, regardless of religion.
        
        I suppose this discussion could devolve into a discussion of game theory, and perhaps it should.
        
        Sounds fun to me!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 8:35am

Dear preacher-man...
...you are an ordinary citizen. This is what's wrong with you... you think you are special. Comcast sucks, agreed, but you aren't any different other than you have a voice loud enough to get attention and make a call to action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: Dear preacher-man...
  So what, is he supposed to just keep quiet then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:33am
  
  Re: Dear preacher-man...
  Two quick things:
  
  1. Pfleger actually makes this exact same point. He has a platform and a loud voice, and that's really the only difference.
  
  2. By having a platform and a loud voice, he can raise the question, "how many other people are being denied service because they can't generate sufficient volume, yet are still being billed?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re: Dear preacher-man...
    One of the things about the Internet is that it can give anyone facing injustice a loud voice. From before you would have to go through a centralized media source and hope they would be willing to publish the problem. If you're just a little guy big media probably doesn't care. You might get better results with a small local newspaper assuming that it has enough influence to make a difference.
    
    Now with the Internet and blogs there are many ways to spread information. You can start your own blog, you can use your own social media account, or you can submit it to someone else who has a blog or a combination of things.
    
    One issue is that not everyone facing injustice may want to be in the spotlight for reporting it. But if it's something systematic like this concerning an entire neighborhood there is bound to be at least one person willing to publicly put themselves out there which creates risk for a any potential perpetrator of injustice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dear preacher-man...
      There was one person willing to publicly put themselves out there: Pfleger.
      
      He also already had notoriety (as per the article) to help draw attention to the issue, which allowed him an easier time spreading the information. He didn't need to submit it to a blog and hope that people read it. He put it on Facebook and enough people read it.
      
      So, yes, someone can do these things to draw attention (and did) and inevitably someone was willing to be in the spotlight (him).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 14 Nov 2015 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dear preacher-man...
      Now with the Internet and blogs there are many ways to spread information. You can start your own blog, you can use your own social media account, or you can submit it to someone else who has a blog or a combination of things.
      
      I think it's telling, and refreshing even, that you didn't even consider taking a grievance to an elected representative, as who could possibly believe they might be interested in fixing this injustice?
      
      Soon perhaps, the bastards are going to be begging and bribing us to vote for them. Good. Do go gently into that dark night, useless electoral twats. A pox on your houses.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2015 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: Dear preacher-man...
  If he were an ordinary man he'd high-tail it out of that neighborhood. If he were an ordinary man he would he'd look the other way when someone's in need. Thank God he's not an ordinary man.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoeCool (profile), 13 Nov 2015 @ 10:24am

The truth
So, either Chicago's violence problem was suddenly solved in a matter of hours, or Comcast cares more about PR than it does the safety of its technicians, which it had invoked only hours previous as to why it wouldn't come.

The latter. Comcast cares nothing about the technicians. They were more worried about the many thousands of dollars worth of equipment on the truck. But the bean-counters probably pointed out how much money a story like this would cost and pointed out that the trucks are insured. They still don't care about the technician, but the bean-counters probably pointed to government disability programs as covering that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Jew, 13 Nov 2015 @ 12:05pm

Jews are organ donors
Four generations of my family are organ donors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 14 Nov 2015 @ 6:45am

Not that AT&T is any better
But Comcast is better known as "Comcrap" for a reason! As for AT&T? Well, this month I suffered sticker shock when they doubled the price of my business internet U-verse access, from $80 to $155... I called and threatened to switch to Comcast immediately. Guess what? The rep. immediately rolled me back to $80 / month (25mbps uncapped service), at least for the next year. I guess I'll have to go through this crap again next fall... :-( My neighbors who voted against municipal fiber broadband some years ago (after extensive lobbying by Comcrap and AT&T) all regret their decision now. Duh? I wonder why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]