Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording

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?

The first rule of fraud is...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Don't talk about your fraud on the record... It's not at all surprising that Comcast would do this, the fact that their alignment is apathetic/evil is well known; but it's pretty surprising how open they are about it.

Invoice fraud is a totally classic con; but it depends in part on knowing when not to push it. The target catches on and is angy; do you want to cause a scene and risk discovery or just offer an insincere apology, drop the issue, and move on to the next target? Especially given Comcast's current less-than-winning PR situation (you know it's bad when your cancellation procedure has an AOL guy driven to despair...) there is no way this call would be worth the risk, even if they'd made all the charges stick. Shut up, appease the noisy guy, and cram some befuddled old people or something.

I suspect that the odds of actually being charged are basically zero; but billing 'errors' made in very, very, questionable good faith start to look a lot like mail fraud if they aren't quite isolated incidents(especially given how added charges always seem to be more common than accidentally omitted charges).

What about Oregon and Washington?

[Futurepower(R)]

In other states, like Oregon, part of the recording must include a question about whether it is okay to record, and the answer. So the question is asked twice.

Does anyone know whether it is okay to record conversations when the other party's recorded message says the call is recorded? Washington state and Oregon are 2 about which I'd like to know, with links to the law.

It's crazy that each state has its own laws! It's crazy that Comcast is allowed to be so abusive. CenturyLink, the phone company in Oregon and SW Washington state, is also hostile to customers, in my experience. We are becoming a country where the rich can do anything they want to everyone else.

Is the answer always to record? If legal, I think yes.

Why isn't call recording a smartphone feature?

[swb]

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.

Re:Automated notice not necessary here

[RenderSeven]

Just wondering, if the other party says the call may be recorded, does that mean its legal for me to record also? Seems fair that if they ask the question they are giving tacit approval for me to record.

Quit COMPLAINING about Comcast and buy them out.

[F34nor]

Natural monopolies should never be for profit. This is what happens when you pay lip service to free market capitalism and fail to regulate. You get natural monoploies acting as either true monopolies or oligopolies.

If you every household who uses comcast turn off their service and spends the 150 a month on Comcast stock even if the stock stayed steady it would take 2 years to buy them out. Then we put Nader, Lessig, et. al on the board and FIRE EVERY FUCKING EXEC AND MANAGER IN THAT FUCK HOLE.

Re:What about Oregon and Washington?

[AvitarX]

I'm willing to be damaging a companies reputation with an illegal recording is going to get you into trouble, but I've always taken "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" to mean I am allowed to record, to assure quality service.

Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT!

[brindafella]

True! "This call may be recorded..." is a bi-directional statement. I love the logic.

Also, if in doubt, as you hear the 'statement', repeat their exact words into the phone.

And, if in further doubt, when a real human comes on the line, ask, "Do you agree?" If the answer is a spluttering 'Yes' then.... or if 'No' then say "Please review your recording of his call, and I'll wait on the line as you do that." And, listen to what happens; It's likely to be hilarious! ;-)

Re:Automated notice not necessary here

[tepples]

Federal should only be concerned with international and interstate issues

Such as a phone call that crosses state lines, right?

Re: Automated notice not necessary here

[kilfarsnar]

The Constitution does not lay out the powers of the Federal Government with regards to recording. Obviously, the technology didn't exist back then, but still the Federal government does not have that authority; at least until the Supreme Court can shoehorn recording conversations into the Commerce clause.

Corporate Culture

[Nemesisghost]

While I haven't worked for a large number of companies(only 4), I can say that corporate culture defines these types of interactions more than any executive degree ever will. When you have a company that is solely focused on profits, you will always end up with situations like this. Yet, when you have a company that values their customers, things like this will very rarely happen. The last company & the one I currently work for are both for profit(one public & one private), but put their customers first over that profit. This happens from the CEO down to those who are the face of the company people by interacting with the "customers". The attitude of service to the customer is ingrained as a part of the culture, and any deviation from this is unacceptable.

Contrast that with the companies I worked early on(a telemarketer & a "small loan" company) and it's night & day. These 2 companies only wanted profit, at the cost of mistreatment of their customers & employees. The attitude was to treat everybody suspiciously, and employment metrics were based on how much money you made the company. I now find it funny to see the excuses they used to justify the "good" work they were engaged in.

This is why people like to shop at mom & pop stores, which usually cost more, than Wal-Mart. The owners of these small shops care more about their customers & making sure that they leave a good impression, than they do the immediate sale. Now this might not be for truly altruistic purposes, as mom & pop shops live and die by word of mouth, but that doesn't mean it isn't appreciated.

Re:Automated notice not necessary here

[LVSlushdat]

Well THAT sucks big time.. I live in Nevada and apparently its a "both parties" state.. I wonder what happens then, if I make it clear I don't consent to *their* recording "for "training purposes"?? Wonder if anybody has ever done it... Sounds like a law we desparately need to get changed here.. (not to mention flushing Harry Reid down the toilet...)

So, is that we're now forced to do?

[tekrat]

Have we become a country so corrupt that we now have to record *everything* in order to have even a modicum of justice? You can't get Comcast to not perform mail fraud unless you have a recording of them saying they won't do it, they only way to NOT have a police officer beat you to death for "resisting arrest" is to record it.

Funny that if I personally were to turn the tables on Comcast and send them a bill for services I didn't perform, they'd have the authorities on me in an instant, and try and have me sent to jail.

But there's no way to arrest Comcast for doing the exact same thing, even though they are legally a "person" and can even claim religious rights. Comcast is a sociopathic person who flagrantly disregards the law because they can get away with it.

Re:Legal pemission? THEY GIVE IT!

[Superdarion]

Not everywhere, though. I worked at technical service for a US cellphone carrier and I was instructed during training to refuse being recorded. If a customber told me that he was recording the call, I was to insist they turn it off, or I would have to end the call. Curiously, it was one of the very few reasons I was actually allowed to hang up the phone.

Re:What about Oregon and Washington?

[EvilJoker]

I doubt the first is legally enforceable, as the statutes don't speak of owning the recording. They says that one/all parties on the call must be aware of the recording, and can terminate if they do not consent.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time until a prominent company (Comcast seems about right) does try to sue someone for it, but I suspect their PR dept will immediately demand it be dropped. Not only would it likely be considered a SLAPP, it would certainly involve the Streisand Effect. The headlines write themselves, something like, "Comcast sues customer for holding them to their word". Honestly, I can't even think of a headline that wouldn't put them in a bad light, and it would get a lot of coverage.