Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording 368
An anonymous reader writes In yet another example of the quality of Comcast's customer service, a story surfaced today of a Comcast customer who was over-charged for a service that was never provided. At first, the consumer seemed to be on the losing end of a customer service conversation, with Comcast insisting that the charges were fair. But then, the consumer whipped out a recording of a previous conversation that he had with another Comcast representative in which not only was the consumer promised that he wouldn't be charged for services not rendered, but the reason why was explained. Suddenly Comcast conceded, and the fees were dropped. But most telling of all, the Comcast rep implied that she only dropped them because he had taped his previous interaction with Comcast customer service.
I wish I had recordings of every conversation that I've ever had with AT&T, the USPS, and the landlord I once had in Philadelphia. Lifehacker posted last year a few tips on the practicality of recording phone calls, using Google Voice, a VoIP service, or a dedicated app. Can anyone update their advice by recommending a good Android app (or iOS, for that matter) designed specifically to record sales and service calls, complete with automated notice?
They're Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
And, recording or not, they'll soon just start ditching "troublemaking" customers, like the hospitals do.
Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then, thank you. They just gave permission. This call may be recorded. Thanks, Comcast!
Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No mention of reddit :-( (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Oregon and Washington? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose, once you know when the bot is going to say that line, just preemptively ask it:
Can I record this call?
Then when it says
This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes.
They almost certainly wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Re:What about Oregon and Washington? (Score:2, Insightful)
"It's crazy that each state has its own laws!"
This attitude always amazes me. That is the entire point of the United States!
Re:Quit COMPLAINING about Comcast and buy them out (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulated utilities are allowed to make profits. But it's regulated.
That's the problem. Comcast (and other cable cos) are operating in a natural monopoly market area, but lack any and all related regulations that we force companies operating public utilities to operate under. They are being allowed to act as if its a free market, while at the same time enjoying a quasi-utility type natural monopoly.
They should either be
a) forced to operate as regulated public utilities
b) forced into actual competition
Either one would largely fix the current situation.
Right now they are neither, and are enjoying benefits of both A and B, with non of the consequences of either.
yeah yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
"Comcrap screwed me again. I couldn't get them to reverse this charge."
"Why do you do business with them anyway? You regularly call them things like 'comcrap' and are complaining about them constantly. Why not move to another carrier?"
"I'd love to, but they're the only game in my part of town."
(after a few minutes of research) "No they aren't, you have Qwest Fiber available in your area. Why not switch to that?"
"Well, Comcrap is faster. They offer (some speed) and Qwest only offers (some slightly slower speed)."
"Ok, do you really understand what those speeds mean? How much faster is your pr0n going to download at, for instance, 15 Mbps vs 30 Mbps? In real minutes."
"30 is twice as fast."
"That's only the top peak speed possible from the connection. The actual speed can and does vary wildly. Besides, the speed at the head end of the service you're accessing is much more significant."
"I've had comcrap for six years."
"And you've HATED every minute of it! You haven't called the company by its real name in all of that time! You're regularly telling me how they promise a discount and then don't give it to you, or charge you for stuff you haven't ordered, and how you can't get any charges reversed. What the hell?"
"I got a good price on the bundle."
"You never answer your home phone! And you only watch stuff you've illegally downloaded."
"I don't like commercials."
"Ok..." (deep breath) "So, let's summarize. Of the three services you're currently paying for, you only commonly use one of them (internet), so despite the great deal you got on the bundle, any cost you're paying over and above internet is A WASTE OF MONEY. And the company regularly busts your chops. Yet you stay with them. Are you an abused spouse?"
This is only slightly paraphrased from a real conversation. The conclusion I've drawn from speaking to comcast subscribers is that some stick with it under the impression that they're "getting a deal", and some because they have been sold on the idea that "it's the only game in town", but I suspect that some people just like to have something to complain about.
Re:Why isn't call recording a smartphone feature? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just because of "wiretap" laws? It seems like it would be a pretty trivial feature to add to smartphones. It's also easy to see how it could be very easily enhanced beyond simple audio files -- automated or selective recording of only some calls ("Answer and record", "record all calls" flag in contacts, speech-to-text, and so on).
Recording calls USED to be very easy -- $5 telephone pickup from Radio Shaft and a cassette recorder.
It's still easy to record telephone conversations (speakerphones, digital handheld recorders, and likely apps). What is not so trivial is the average consumer actually using those recordings to their advantage without violating state or federal law.
Besides, would you really want this to be a prevalent feature on smartphones? All of your friends having recordings of your phone conversations? Apps being dropped on the phone that access and share these recordings (via the EULA no one reads anyway). How long before the Facebook/Twitter/Instagram app simply turns on recording and sharing by default, leaving you scrambling to secure your new eavesdropping spy-phone? We act like the current data collection methods aren't intrusive enough.
And yes, it is very sad to think about new and cool technology in this way, but it's the sad reality of the world we live in. One should question how new tech will be abused. It's certainly no longer a question of "if" anymore.
Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Automated notice not necessary here (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like it should legitimately become a federal issue when there are transactions that occur across state lines with different laws affecting the same transaction.
For instance, if someone in a "one party notice" receives a phone call from someone in a "two party notice" state, and has an app on their phone that automatically records all calls... what happens? Which set of laws apply?
Does it change if the "one party notice" person is the one originating the call?
Does it matter if the person knows the laws of the other state?
Does it matter if the person doesn't even know which state he's calling?
How about if it's a New York phone number but it's routed to a call center in India?
I'm all for limiting the power of the federal government but sometimes it actually makes sense. In the case of inter-state phone calls, there either needs to be a federal law establishing which state's laws apply so that we all know once and for all, or (my preference since it's simpler) a federal law unifying all the state laws. Otherwise it's chaos!
Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure? 12 states have laws requiring both (all) parties consent to a recording [wikipedia.org]. This means party A agrees the conversation can be recorded, and party B agrees the conversation can be recorded. The requirement of mutual consent would seem to exclude your interpretation. i.e. Their notice is not just getting your consent to have the conversation recorded (just hang up if you don't approve), but also their announcement that they are consenting to have the conversation recorded.
The remaining states, recording is legal if one party consents. So you can record it if you want regardless of what the other party says.
(Your interpretation also violates reciprocity and consideration, making me think a recording under those terms would be thrown out in court.)
Re:Automated notice not necessary here (Score:4, Insightful)
If they notify you that the call is being recorded then that's all they have to do. If you don't consent then hang up, that's the purpose of the notification.
Re:They're Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
You will be punishing the service reps, not the people who make policy.
Their service reps are Comcast. They don't get to be "human shields" protecting the corporation from customer outrage. Not while they're on the payroll.
Re:Automated notice not necessary here (Score:4, Insightful)
If they notify you that the call is being recorded then that's all they have to do. If you don't consent then hang up, that's the purpose of the notification.
When I call, I just tell the automated thingy I'm recording the call. If they can tell me without a live person telling it to me, I can tell it to their answering software.
Not my fault they don't use real people to answer the phone.