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,” named Neil Smit Charlie Herrin. I hope Herrin wasn’t taking an extended vacation for the holidays, because just in time for New Year’s, yet another horrific customer experience situation has gone viral via Reddit. The whole thing is nicely explained in this 11-and-a-half-minute video in which the guy in question not only records the recent call with Comcast, but also plays back clips from his August calls detailing the promises that were made that Comcast will no longer abide by:

If you don’t feel like watching the video — the short version is that in August, when the guy threatened to take his broadband business elsewhere, a Comcast representative promised him a no contract deal for 100 Mbps down/25 Mbps up for $53.85 after all taxes and fees. Yet, each month his bills keep getting higher and higher, and further and further away from $53.85. Here’s one example:
The customer service person from this week tells him that the promotional rate he was given (which, again, wasn’t actually followed) was only for three months, even though he has a recording in which the rep in August clearly says it’s a 12-month rate after taxes. In fact, the earlier rep “guarantees that your price won’t change for 12 months” and that it’s “$53.85 which is really good because that’s after taxes and everything.” ALL of that is on the recording he has.

As 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.

Filed Under:
Companies: comcast

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Yet Another Horrible Comcast Customer Service Experience Goes Viral”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: "Senior VP of Customer Experience"

And then there’s…

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.

Apparently a 12-month “contract” is no such thing whatsoever.

Manabi (profile) says:

Re: Re: "Senior VP of Customer Experience"

It’s actually more than just the modem rental fee, here’s what they did to my bill (Internet and cable TV, no phone):

* 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!

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Where do you get this from? Believing that fraud is going to be committed doesn’t magically make recording phone conversations legal at all. In fact, if you illegally record a conversation that clearly indicates fraud is happening, that recording will not be admissible as evidence and you can still be prosecuted for making it.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I’m pretty sure you can record a conversation and this is more a civil issue than a criminal one. It maybe the case (depending on state) that it can’t be admissible in civil court in case you get sued or you sue (though, in the case of a criminal case, you the prosecutor will probably be able to admit it since they aren’t the ones that did anything wrong). However, you can still record it, it just may not be admissible in a civil case. You can still blast it on Youtube and embarrass the company. That’s legal. Sure they can ‘prosecute’ you civilly (sue you) but they are very unlikely to prevail. and, for the most part it’s highly unlikely you will be prosecuted for recording a customer service call and it’s unlikely anything like that is illegal. and, in most states, if there is anything indicating that your call maybe recorded that’s an implicit agreement that you may also record the call (and it maybe also admissible as well).

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“I’m pretty sure you can record a conversation and this is more a civil issue than a criminal one.”

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.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

That’s right, when you’re talking about federal law — which is why it’s not a violation of federal law to record a conversation you’re taking part in. However, many states define wiretapping much more broadly than the feds do. If you record a conversation in one of those states without getting the consent of all parties in the conversation, you have violated that state’s wiretapping laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Illinois’s wiretapping law (720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5 / Criminal Code of 2012. Article 14, also called the Illinois eavesdropping law) was a “two-party consent” law. Illinois made it a crime to use an “eavesdropping device” to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation.”

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).


“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]”

Scote (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Constitutional restrictions apply to the *government*

“In fact, if you illegally record a conversation that clearly indicates fraud is happening, that recording will not be admissible as evidence and you can still be prosecuted for making it.”

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.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So don’t tell them they’re being recorded, inform them that you give your consent that the call may be recorded, so that the CSR won’t get into trouble with eavesdropping laws.

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.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Rather, net neutrality is a principle which (if adhered to) would help to mitigate a different problem which is caused by the same underlying issue as this problem.

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.

andyroo says:

Lawa laws laws

In the case of customers of Comcast and others, the truth is that recording conversations is not legal unless you have advised them of this and then only when they acknowledge it is it legal.. But luckily the wider public does not care that it is against the big business lawmakers purchased in congress and they will record and use the open arena on the internet which completely levels the playing field.

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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Lawa laws laws

It’s not quite that cut and dried actually.

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’.

Yakko Warner (profile) says:

Re: Lawa laws laws

In the case of customers of Comcast and others, the truth is that recording conversations is not legal unless you have advised them of this and then only when they acknowledge it is it legal..

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?

a_lawyer says:

Every state wiretapping law is different.

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…

Lisa Connors says:

Incompetant service agents

While visiting my Mother a month ago, her internet went down, she said a check was mailed (I think she might have been late but not a month about 10 days according to the records)so her service was shut off (not even 30 days) and the recording said she owed 149.00 So she called them and found they hadn’t rec’d the check so she continued to pay with a CC and told the agent (JOM????) to set it up for automatic monthly withdrawals (I sat right across from her and heard the entire conversation) Your staff neglected to set it up and now once again she is without internet. I’m not sure if Comcast ever rec’d her check?? if so that should have been applied to this month….It is outrageous how some of these companies operate sending their customers to individuals that can barely speak English or complete a job task….

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow