Behind the Veil Part 6: Comcast Informs Employer Of Complaining Customer

from the screw-job dept

In case you thought the stream of complaints from former and current Comcast customers and employees had ceased, they haven't. With all the fallout surrounding several customer service flops, you'd think that the company would be particularly on its toes in terms of building up good will and avoiding more such stories. The latest story, however, is quite a doozy: it is alleged that Comcast contacted a complaining subscriber's place of business, which resulted in him being fired.

Let's get the service issues out of the way first. Over the course of a year, a man named Conal had had near-constant issues with his Comcast service: everything from being charged for hardware he'd never ordered, sent hardware he never wanted, not getting bills because Comcast misspelled his last name, service visits that failed to activate set-top boxes, and increases in pricing. He attempted to work with Comcast's customer service, at one point asking to cancel service, but instead being sold on free upgrades to keep his business (AKA, the Comcast customer service MO). Eventually, fed up, he returned all the equipment that had actually been delivered to him and, because he is an accountant, prepared a spreadsheet with all the incorrect charges and service issues. Instead of rectifying the charges, Comcast immediately sent his account to collections, despite the fact that the charges weren't past due. When customer service failed to address any of the above, he decided to go above them entirely and called the office of Comcast's Controller. After getting a call back from another customer service rep instead, he called the Controller's office again.

During this call, he says that he mentioned that Comcast’s billing and accounting issues should probably be investigated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), a private-sector oversight operation. This ultimately led to two service calls where no one ever showed up and no explanations were given. But something did happen. Just not anything good.
That not good action by Comcast was for someone to put a call into a partner at Conal's accounting firm. The Comcast employee suggested that Conal had name-dropped the accounting firm as a way to get better service, since the accounting firm had done some minor work for Comcast in the past. This led to the company investigating the situation for ethical violations by Conal and ultimately firing him due to, according to his exit interview, a summary of his communications with Comcast provided directly by Comcast. Conal was never allowed to see the summary, nor were his requests for recorded conversations ever honored. Comcast even acknowledges calling the employer.
In response to a letter from Conal’s lawyer — he has not filed a lawsuit, but it’s not out of the question — Comcast’s Senior Deputy General Counsel admits that the company did contact Conal’s employer but says that Conal “is not in a position to complain that the firm came to learn” about his dispute with Comcast.
Well, okay then. Look, this is a one-sided report form a clearly-jilted ex-customer of Comcast's, so it might be quite easy to dismiss it as unreliable. And, hey, there's a chance we're not getting the whole story here. On the other hand: Comcast. The way the company has conducted business, particularly over the past few years, lends itself to being criticized and to the assumption that these kinds of stories are more true than false. Does anyone really believe the company is incapable of doing exactly as Conal accuses? I sure don't, because I've been paying attention to the Comcast stories we've written about in the past. And the company's tone-deaf responses to these issues don't help either.
We reached out to Comcast to ask whether it’s company policy to contact customers’ employers. No one answered that question, but a rep for Comcast did give a brief statement.

“Our customers deserve the best experience every time they interact with us,” reads the statement. Comcast says it has previously apologized to Conal, but adds “we will review his lawyer’s letter and respond as quickly as possible.”
Yawn. Thanks Comcast. I'm sure we'll be seeing you again in a future post.

Finally, after the story started to go viral, Comcast put up a public apology blog post:
What happened with Mr. O’Rourke's service is completely unacceptable. Despite our attempts to address Mr. O’Rourke’s issues, we simply dropped the ball and did not make things right. Mr. O’Rourke deserves another apology from us and we’re making this one publicly. We also want to clarify that nobody at Comcast asked for him to be fired.

We’re also determined to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with his service, figure out what went wrong at every point along the way, and fix any underlying issues
This is from Comcast's brand spanking new VP of Customer Experience. Perhaps the title they should have given him is Chief Apologizer.

Hide this

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
Companies: comcast


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 2:21am

    PR to English translation

    What happened with Mr. O’Rourke's service is completely unacceptable.

    'The story got out and we're looking bad(again). That's not how it was supposed to happen.'

    Despite our attempts to address Mr. O’Rourke’s issues, we simply dropped the ball and did not make things right.

    'We got him fired, that was supposed to shut him up and be the end of it.'

    Mr. O’Rourke deserves another apology from us and we’re making this one publicly.

    'Absolutely no-one, including me, believes we're sincere of course, but we hope by at least pretending we can just brush this one under the rug.'

    We also want to clarify that nobody at Comcast asked for him to be fired.

    'Because as long as we don't directly ask that he be fired, it doesn't count.'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 9 Oct 2014 @ 2:54pm

      Re: PR to English translation

      We didn't ask his employer to fire him, we just falsely accused Conal of ethics violations before his employer that would force them to fire him to avoid possible liability.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:09pm

      Re: PR to English translation

      We’re also determined to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with his service, figure out what went wrong at every point along the way...

      'Next time, no half-measures. From now on, no survivors, no witnesses.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 3:53am

    For current Comcast customers, the message is crystal clear: Shut the fuck up and deal with the wallet rape. Or else.

    These stories don't get people fired up and so pissed off to cancel their service. They send a different message, which is precisely why Comcast is sitting back, laughing its ass off, with the notion they can do no wrong.

    And they're right until customers do start canceling their subscriptions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 4:11am

      Re:

      And they're right until customers do start canceling their subscriptions.

      Except that they have a monopoly on certain places and they are looking into expand it with the merger and ramp up the ass fuckery against their customers by fighting tooth and nail against the reclassification.

      Yeah, everything better for the consumer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 7:20am

      Re:

      I could switch to AT&T.

      Who, by the way, charged me for several months after I moved into my house. Even though I never had their service. And, refused to understand the concept that just because they "activated my service" they can't just charge me for something I never asked for.

      It took MONTHS to get through that, to get the charges dropped, and to get the service that I never even had deactivated. It was almost to the point of having to go to court over it.

      And I never even HAD AT&T. I mean, AT&T screwed me over, and I never even had their service. I can't imagine what it would be like if I did.

      So, give my money to terrible corporation A or terrible corporation B? Or, what? Go without Internet? There is no option here to drop the bad guys. There is no choice to make.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 7:47am

        Re: Re:

        So, give my money to terrible corporation A or terrible corporation B?

        You could always give your money to terrible corporation C or D - mobile internet. Sure it's more expensive and slower, but it's a "choice".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 8:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I work from home, so I really need the speed/throughput of broadband.

          What I am currently looking into is getting a business line to my home. Customer service is better, and uptime is more reliable.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MM_Dandy (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 8:43am

        Re: Re:

        I hate AT&T. I was a screwed-over AT&T customer nearly 15 years ago, and swore I'd never be an AT&T customer again.

        A few years ago, we switched to AT&T because the only other game in town was just as bad, only they charged more.

        I hate AT&T.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 9:52am

        Re: Re:

        Happened to me. I spent several hours trying to get fiber to my address (from Telefonica) to find out in the end they DID NOT offer fiber in my neighborhood even though I explicitly told them several times over the course of the 6-8 hours that I was only going for them because of the fiber. When I was about to sign up the representative told me only regular dsl was available and she was incredibly rude. I told her to undo everything. A few months later they called me in a threatening tone telling me I should pay my bills or else. I found out what bills they were talking about and got extremely upset but they couldn't care less about you so I ended up paying as the costs (financial and emotional) of fighting against weren't worth it (it was like $25).

        In any case I'm glad I don't need to use their services.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2014 @ 1:59pm

        Re: Re:

        I used to work for AT&T. Customers like you are WHY I worked for them, because fixing your problem (or saying sorry, and giving you back your money, like they should have in the first place) WAS my job. Then they sold out to Comcast...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 7:37am

      Re:

      I wish I could cancel my subscription, I really do. But broadband internet is not optional for me, and there is no other way to get it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 9 Oct 2014 @ 3:01pm

      Re:

      But Comcast just made it clear that if you cancel your subscription they will call your employer and get you fired. Who's going to risk losing their job for refusing to pay the mandatory $200+ per month Comcast tax?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 5:13pm

        Re: Re:

        But Comcast just made it clear that if you cancel your subscription they will call your employer and get you fired.

        It's foolish to suggest that everyone who tries to cancel will get fired. This is a singular event with very unusual circumstances.

        Unless you're just making a joke, in which case proceed with the hilarity.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 4:10am

    Oh nice, so now when you try to cancel your Internet service you get fired. Aside from the obvious paradox of no job = no money to pay for the service it seems Comcast is not only aiming to be the most hated company of America but also Satan's personal box of evilness.

    This is from Comcast's brand spanking new VP of Customer Experience.

    Does he have horns and speak in a deep, terrifying, sarcastic tone?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 4:42am

    Hey, Comcast, cool of you to look into fixing the guy's service and all, but…uh…what about that whole "getting him fired" thing?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Another Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 4:53am

    Get things right?

    If Comcast wants to make things right, either they need to get the guy rehired WITH BACK PAY AND BENEFITS, or they need to provide his salary and benefits, from the point of his dismissal, before his lawyer gets the courts to do so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 5:51am

      Re: Get things right?

      While Comcast is certainly at fault here, it seems to me that the accounting firm could be a target of a legitimate lawsuit. If this guy had an employment contract, there's a good chance it was violated. He might have been employed at will though, in which case he's probably out of luck.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 7:41am

        Re: Re: Get things right?

        Comcast alleged that he was using his position with his company as leverage. I don't believe them, but if true then it would probably be he who violated his employment contract, not his employer.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 8:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Get things right?

          I don't believe them, but if true then it would probably be he who violated his employment contract, not his employer.

          Possibly. And such a contract could say almost anything so this is all just speculation. I would hope the contract would specify that the employee would have some kind of opportunity to challenge or at least see the reasons he's being dismissed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 10 Oct 2014 @ 8:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Get things right?

            Yes, I'm totally speculating. All I know is that every employment contract I've signed has included some form of a "morals clause", usually boilerplate, and under almost all of them doing what Comcast alleges would be a contractual violation.

            "I would hope the contract would specify that the employee would have some kind of opportunity to challenge or at least see the reasons he's being dismissed."

            The contract doesn't have to spell this out. If either party alleges a contractual violation, the whole thing can go to court (or, as many contracts specify, an "independent" arbitrator) and each side can make their case. Worst case, all would be revealed there.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Blue Sweater (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:06am

        Re: Re: Get things right?

        What if he is from a state where an employer can fire you for any or no reason? (No-Fault maybe??)

        Honest question... I'm just wondering if these places do actually exist and if employers do have that kind of control.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 10 Oct 2014 @ 8:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Get things right?

          Being in an "at will" state doesn't enter into it if there is an employment contract. The terms of the contract would apply instead.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:16am

        Re: Re: Get things right?

        He works in an at-will state. Meaning he can be chucked out for anything. In this case he got kicked out for an ethics violation.

        The only way for him to get a wrongful termination resolution is to get Comcast to admit they slandered him to PWC so there was no ethics violation, just a big account lying to them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 1:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: Get things right?

          Whether or not he works in an at-will state, if he had an employment contract (I don't know if he did), the contract would still be binding. If it puts restrictions on why he can be fired, the employer would need to follow them.

          If he had no contract, then he's out of luck. The employer could fire him because they just felt like it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dan, 9 Oct 2014 @ 4:54am

    hate em and leave em

    $100 antenna
    $500 lifetime Tivo DVR box no monthly charges
    Netflix and Amazon for entertainment

    No More Comcast or any pay tv service. Cut the cord

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 6:47am

      Re: hate em and leave em

      But how do you get internet service for Netflix and Amazon?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2014 @ 8:16am

      Re: hate em and leave em

      that's fine if you have ANYBODY else available for internet access... HOWEVER, significant COMCAST territory is a monopoly zone. For example. I'm in S.NH and have no other option for internet except for COMCAST, unless you accept 700kb/s as 'broadband' from DSL.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 5:50am

    Predictably, Comcast deleted my comment- it had a link to this page.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JWH, 9 Oct 2014 @ 5:54am

    However ...

    Comcast completely screwed this guy on the service end. However, if the guy (an employee of Comcast's accounting firm) implied that Comcast ought to be investigated, then, yeah, I could see firing him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Howard (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 6:26am

      Re: However ...

      He weren't working at Comcast's accounting firm. He contacted the firm over-watching Comcast's accounting because he thought (rightfully) that they were sloppy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Who Cares (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:19am

        Re: Re: However ...

        No he contacted Comcast. He was telling them he was considering to complain about how they are screwing up their accounting to the regulatory body overseeing that.
        And that is something Comcast can't have with the proposed merger on the horizon.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 6:24am

    Hey, are you sick 'n tired of dealing with those damned customers who complain all the time? Would you like to be rid of them all, including the entire customer support department?

    Well, have I got a solution for you. Simply give their employer a call and have them fired! Voilà - problem solved. Now you can go back to enjoying your fruity umbrella drink on one of your really huge yachts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 7:10am

    New at Comcast 1 DVR 1 Router with open wifi (electricity paid for by customer) 1 Bottle of Lube , We plan to make this assraping as painless as possible (except for the sand in the lube) Have a Nice Day, and thank you for your patronage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 7:35am

    We already have ttwo of these

    Perhaps the title they should have given him is Chief Apologizer

    They are called the Pres and Vice Pres of the US.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 8:45am

    Please don't make me defend Comcast

    However... This is complicated.

    The first part of this story is Comcast as we know it. Atrocious service (even more craptastic than normal), erroneous billing, and a host of problems trying to resolve it.

    This is what resulted (after public pressure, of course) in the public apology from Comcast. This is what they're apologizing for.

    The second part of this story is where things get a bit dicey and prompt me to do something I really feel terrible doing: Defending Comcast.

    Conal O'Rourke works for PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). PWC provides accounting advisory services to Comcast. O'Rourke, after spending months trying to resolve Comcast's problems with his service and account, emailed a Comcast employee a copy of a letter he said he might send (but had not yet sent) to the Comcast comptroller. In that letter, he said:
    Given the significant billing problems I have incurred, similar complaints found on the web and in newspapers, it raises serious concerns regarding Comcast’s internal controls on revenue. I will shortly be in contact with your external auditor, Deloitte with my specific concerns. I am also going to make the recommendation for Deloitte to conduct additional testing of Comcast’s internal controls. This will help your auditor ascertain the extent of this apparent systemic problem and make recommendations for remediation. I will also be contacting the PCAOB [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board] to ensure Deloitte’s compliance with my findings and recommendation as appropriate for additional testing and analysis to be performed.


    Full letter here (sorry about big URL):
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1309773-gmail-electronic-copy-mr-lawrence-j-salva.html

    S ome time later, his problems still not being resolved, he called the Comptroller of Comcast, yelled at his secretary, and again mentioned going to the PCAOB.

    This is all according to O'Rourke's description of what's happened. The only thing in question is whether he at any time identified himself to Comcast as an employee of PWC. Comcast says he did. He says he didn't.

    But that might not actually be relevant to alleged violations of PWC's ethical standards (although it would be relevant to their learning about alleged violations):

    An employee of PWC (Comcast's accounting advisory firm) threatened to contact Deloitte (Comcast's external auditor) with allegations of systematic accounting problems, and threatening to contact the PCAOB. Any accounting firm would likely view that as a probable ethical violation. It's hugely inappropriate.

    O'Rourke was angry and frustrated. This was entirely justified. Comcast is awful, and their customer service in his case was especially bad. But in his anger, he did something that, as a PWC employee, he should not have done. Not because it was strategically unwise, but because it was ethically very very questionable. As an accounting professional with 20+ years' experience, he should have known better. And unfortunately now he's suffering for that, even though it was Comcast that started all this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 9:16am

      Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

      Trying to understand this argument as a non-accountant type.

      As I understand it, I could complain to PCAOB about accounting malfeasance on Comcast's part. If we believe O'Rourke's story, he was approaching Comcast as such a private citizen, not as an accountant at PWC. Presumably the issue is that, as a PWC employee, he would have access to (potentially) damaging information that he could then hand to PCAOB.

      Would it make any difference from an ethics standpoint if 1) he didn't know that Comcast was a PWC client and/or 2) he never told Comcast he was part of PWC (meaning he was acting as a private citizen)? Or does his contacting PCAOB at all, ever, constitute an ethics violation that he should have known about?

      Thanks for the interesting counter-hysteria information (though I, too, enjoying bashing comcast). Did you post something similar on Ars?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 9:29am

        Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

        I'd think if he didn't know that Comcast was a PWC client, and didn't identify himself as a PWC employee, that should make a difference. But I'm not sure whether it actually would, officially. (Any experts on accounting ethics here who could tell us?)

        And, yes, a few people (including myself) have posted something similar on Ars.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          CrushU, 9 Oct 2014 @ 2:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

          The flaw in this reasoning is that nowhere was such an 'I'll ignore it if you fix things' message given. He said 'I will shortly be contacting', and never was it conditional upon fixing the service.

          So yes, it would be a dubious thing if he found violations and only threatened to report them, but that's not what happened.

          Additionally, he never said anything along the lines of bringing his employer into the matter, or anything available to him through that employer. Thus, he is not using the employer's resources on this personal matter.

          Finally, the only reasonable objection would be to have this employee helping with Comcast's accounting. But I hardly think they can't give him something else to do, something not related to Comcast. (I suspect that if you have service with Comcast, you can't work on their file, then they'd run out of people who can work on their file quickly.)

          Oh, right: IANAA. ;)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 9:17am

      Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

      The only problem I have with his actions is that instead of threatening to go to the PCAOB he should have followed ethical guidelines and contacted the board for potential accounting irregularities, then gone back to Comcast. The ethical violation is offering to overlook problems if Comcast would fix his problems.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 9:24am

        Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

        Precisely. If he'd done what you'd suggested he could be viewed as a whistle-blower. But, even if it didn't intend it as such, it's perfectly reasonable to infer from his letter and calls that he's threatening to report questionable activity, unless they meet his demands. That's not whistle-blowing. That looks like something else entirely.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:08am

        Re: Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

        Oh, that suddenly makes more sense. Because he made his report of accounting violations conditional on Comcast's behavior, he has effectively sold-out. If there were violations, he needed to report them, period.

        Thanks for your replies.

        -The Original AC replier, sock-puppeting under a new ip address!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JWH, 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:35am

      Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

      You expressed this much better than I did above. An employee of their accountant threatened to contact their auditor over a purely personal matter ... highly unprofessional at best. IMO, he would have probably done better to resort to the small claims system.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Please don't make me defend Comcast

      "any accounting firm would view that as an ethical violation..."

      bwa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa
      you're funny: AS IF nearly ALL the big acctg firms are not in bed with their clients and doing ALL THEY CAN to avoid ANY accountability, cook the books, and bend the laws like an iphone...
      wait, bend like a cooked spaghetti noodle, i meant...

      no, this had NOTHING to do with maintaining their 'sterling' (*cough*bullshit*cough*) reputation; and ALL about NOT upsetting clients with possible investigations that will NO DOUBT reveal slime...

      but the thing is, since the (in)justice system is effectively a handmaiden of Big Korporations, i doubt PWC/comcast had ANY reason to be really scared...

      hee hee hee
      ho ho ho
      ha ha ha
      ak ak ak

      now, grampa, tell us the story about how the war on terror is to protect us po' schlubs at home, that's a real funny one, too...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:26am

    So the lesson to take from this is that whistleblowing is your only option :)

    Per the above discussion that, if an ethical violation occurred, it was because he threatened to report them if they did not fix matters, it then seems to me that the safe course of action for him would be not to mention the account irregularities to Comcast at all. Instead, upon deciding that they were this sloppy, he should have, as a private citizen (and preferably anonymously if this is permitted) filed his complaints with the appropriate oversight boards, citing all the direct evidence from the mishandling of his account and, if the oversight board accepts hearsay-level information, referencing the material found online about other people whose accounts were mishandled. Let Comcast discover the unhappiness when the oversight board sends them a formal notice of enquiry.

    Incidentally, I still side with the customer, at least until Comcast releases full copies of all the conversations in which he alleged irregularities and a full transcript of exactly what Comcast sent to the accounting firm.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zonker, 9 Oct 2014 @ 3:34pm

    After affording Comcast with more than sufficient notice to correct what were presumed to be mistakes in their accounting, he should absolutely submit the evidence of their now willful and deliberate accounting malfeasance to the oversight board. I'm sure he could easily obtain further evidence by soliciting additional evidence from Comcast customers nationwide who have had accounting problems with Comcast as well.

    His previous employer should be investigated for helping Comcast bury the damning evidence of their accounting discrepancies by terminating the man that discovered them. That he had worked for an accounting company is even more damning of his previous employer's involvement.

    Likely won't matter though, because in America the corporations buy the outcomes they want and laws don't apply to them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.