  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | The laws... In a "one-party" state, as long as one side authorizes the recording of the conversation, then you are good to go. If you ASK to authorize the recording and they deny it, then you lose that legal ground...
In a "two-party" state, both sides need to agree to record the conversation. | |
|
 |  MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: The laws... I don't think that's accurate.
If the other party denies that, you can still record it because you have your own authorization. As long as 1 party authorizes it, it's fine. It's not that if anybody refuses that you can't record it.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
| | | | Re: The laws... That is 100% correct. It means a third party cannot record a 2 party call, i.e the cops without a warrant.
Depending on where the TWC call center is, the rep may have been correct, although the customer could also refuse to be recorded, but then they would not be able to speak to a CSR. Catch 22 | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: The laws... If you call a number, and you get a message like "calls recorded" before the rep answers, you can record that call because they are. They have given you notice and that notice also goes for them.
Just be sure you record the message "calls recorded" and you do not have to notify the rep after that, they know their calls are recorded. | |
|
| | quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | The law, as according to the USC 47, Chapter 9 Subchapter I, if you wish to opt-out you can, even in a 1-party state. In that case, recording needs top stop at that point. You then always have the choice to hang-up if you need to record the conversation.
The tricky thing is you don't know where the call center is. It may be in a two-party state, in which case you NEED to have consent in order to record. A message when you call into the call center can make explicit the requirement to consent to recording to continue, but either party can opt-out at any time, and at that point the recording needs to stop. Many times to opt-out you need to hang up and communicate using a different method. | |
|
| | CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by MxxCon:I don't think that's accurate.
It is accurate.
In a one party state, only one person needs to give permission to record the conversation. Since I am calling the Service Center and I give myself permission to record the conversation, I do not have to inform the rep that it is being recorded.
In a two (or all) party state, all people participating in the conversation must give consent for the recording to be legal. Once everyone has consented, it makes no difference who records it, the permission to record is already there.
If a person in a one party state records a conversation with someone in a two party state without notifying them, the recording is legal and admissible as evidence in a court in the one party state. It would be up to the judge in a two party state if he/she will allow or deny it as evidence.
Either way, since the Service Center is informing all parties that the call is being recorded, you may record it without further mention or permission in either type of state. | |
|
| | |  davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC | Re: The laws... CXM_Splicer gets a gold star. Because TWC has a "calls may be recorded for quality and training purposes" announcement in their automated attendant, you do NOT need to ask the rep for their permission to record the call. This is called implied consent. TWC is telling you that it may record the call, thus if you wish, you may also record the call. Because TWC is doing it ahead of the actual connection to an agent, the announcement is considered binding wherever the agent is located as the HQ location approved consent.
}Davoice | |
|
| | | | the OP is correct. Ohio is a one party state and the Ohio law even defines the ONE person as making or receiving the call. That person does not have to say anything. | |
|
| | | MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: The laws... said by TBusiness:the OP is correct. Ohio is a one party state and the Ohio law even defines the ONE person as making or receiving the call. That person does not have to say anything.
That was not the point of my reply
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
| |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: The laws... Wait a moment.. what if the caller had set the phone down and didn't here the message about recording? I know that if I started telling things to "customer service" after I called, probably nobody heard me. Maybe they recorded it, though  | |
|
| | | | Thanks for the information. I'm in Florida and I have been given some bad information in the past from the cable company. I'm definitely going to see about recording all future calls going forward. | |
|
| |  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | Do you have the name of the case?
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | But whos laws matter?
As in if the call originates from a 1 party state but terminates to a call center in a two party state whos laws take effect?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: The laws... Most likely the more restrictive law. | |
|
| | | | What does that matter? Your not going to follow laws of a state your not even in are you? | |
|
| | | | Depends on the state. And the laws. | |
|
|  stevek1949We're not in Kansas anymore
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA | said by quetwo:In a "one-party" state, as long as one side authorizes the recording of the conversation, then you are good to go. If you ASK to authorize the recording and they deny it, then you lose that legal ground...
In a "two-party" state, both sides need to agree to record the conversation.
Look here for the individule state laws. If the call is interstate, the state with the strictest law will probably the best to comply with.
»www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording | |
|
 phxmarkWhat Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ | Excellent Parody Site It probably won't be up much longer, but it is hilarious. I think more parody sites need to pop up for all companies that do not serve their customers properly.
--
High speed is dangerous. Too many MP3s, not enough time. | |
|
| MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Excellent Parody Site Then we would run out of domain names  | |
|
| | | said by phxmark:It probably won't be up much longer, but it is hilarious. I think more parody sites need to pop up for all companies that do not serve their customers properly. I'm afraid you're right. Their web host has already disclosed the name of the person who owns the domain so that they can be harassed by Time Warner legal team. Also, the video that they posted on YouTube has been deleted and the entire account has been suspended, as has their Twitter account.
If whoever put this site up refuses to take it down and Time Warner sues them for libel/slander, who is the burden of proof on? Does TW have to prove that what was put up on the website is false or does the owner of the website have to prove that TW service does indeed suck donkey's balls?
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies.
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill.
If the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of progress is Congress. | |
|
| | dra6o0n
join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON | Re: Excellent Parody Site For each site a company takes down, another three emerges from the ground. | |
|
| | | | By the "name" of the company on the letter - it looks like its GoDaddy. | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Williamstown, NJ
kudos:5 | said by phxmark:It probably won't be up much longer, but it is hilarious. I think more parody sites need to pop up for all companies that do not serve their customers properly.
The content, as a parody, probably would withstand any lawsuits. But using a domain name of twccustomerservice.com will probably be challenged by TWC and be taken away from the parody site. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Insight Communic..
| Actualy When they use that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" Or that "this call is recorded variant" that is TWC giving a blanket authorization for both sides in recording, as you can not opt out of them not recording the call, if you try they will tell you they cant turn it off. So don't even bother to ask, just get that announcement they use on the recording. | |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
| Re: Actualy said by OSUGoose:When they use that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" Or that "this call is recorded variant" that is TWC giving a blanket authorization for both sides in recording, as you can not opt out of them not recording the call, if you try they will tell you they cant turn it off. So don't even bother to ask, just get that announcement they use on the recording.
This is not true in California. | |
|
| | | | Re: Actualy Actually the reason for that recorded message is because of California, it serves as the legal notification that the company is recording, if you don't want to be recorded don't complete the call, by completing the call you consent, per the FCC. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Actualy It makes more sense when the "may" is not taken as "might" but as permissive, as in "thank you sir, may I have another", a phrase whose on-screen appearance exemplifies the usual corporation/consumer relationship. | |
|
| | cable maffiaa got mad
waaaaaa from TWC maffiaa |
»twccustomerservice.com/Don_t_Mak···TWC.html
Time Warner maffiaa cable is basing all the legal threats on trademarks and copyrights and "this name is close enough to ours so we is gonna steal all your domains and bankrupt you because we time warner cable can".
Proper recording for court evidence for the company or customer needs no permission. One side records and no need to tell(at least in Canada) about the recording. But the corporation will still refuse to release any recordings unless threatened by the courts or people who know exactly what laws there are in each region.
Never tell customer support you are recording, as they will hangup.
Never be threatened with 'violation of wiretapping laws' as they do not apply, as you are one party and you need evidence for court. Some companies will actually edit the recording before it gets anywhere near court(can't find the link).
Consumers are ignorant and the corporations luv it sweeties.
Telephone laws..
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_···ing_laws | |
|
 DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2 | Well, Goll-lee! And I used to think that Manhattan Cable was pathetic and sucked big, green, donkey tallywhackers! | |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Can I Record all CSR Calls? So, can I record all CSR calls if I give notice that I am recording and get their message that 'this message may be recorded' on my tape? I would say something like:
I may record this call for future legal action.
I wonder how many hang ups I would get. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Can I Record all CSR Calls? said by OwlSaver:I wonder how many hang ups I would get.
100% hang ups. I have spoken to a call center employee, and if you state this they will hang up. It is in their script. | |
|
| | | As long as they are recording and you record their notice to you, you do not need to give them any other notice. | |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Yes, TWC/TWI can do a lot worse Somebody (telcos wink, wink) must be felling the pressure as all these cable (TWC in this case) videos continue to pop up.
90% of all those 'interviewed' look like homeless, poor or people saying 'WTF what is timewarner?' these people can't afford or don't even have a TV. The real TWC subscribers inside TWC's office didn't even acknowledged those two nut-cases making a scene yelling F%^k you to every one inside the office.
I know TWC can do a lot worse considering that (in my case) they are doing a good job.
1. How many times I loose connection due to malfunctions? Answer: One time every two years.
2. How good is customer service? Don't know, never had to talk to them.
3. How can TWC/TWI do a worse job? By giving me 18Mbps instead of the 75Mbps I currently have.
My only real complain is price but this is true for the whole industry. | |
|
| | | Re: Yes, TWC/TWI can do a lot worse TWI???? | |
|
| | IN North Carolina.. I've checked the laws on recording anyone and in NC, where I live, you don't have to let the other party know you are recording. I know this because I've recorded my landlord for what might be a lawsuit coming soon... | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 | You're good to go If they say that the call may be recorded for quality purposes then they just gave you permission to record it.
No need to ask again. | |
|
| | Just do what I do Ive started to take a stand against TWC in the only ways I can (without going the download all TV shows my family watches route).
1) I pay my bill via their online system $1 at a time (this should cost them more money in processing fees than if I paid it in 1 large sum).
2) I call in and have HBO turned on a few hours before Game of Thrones, then call in and have it disabled a few hours after. This way I am only paying for what I am watching.
I haven't found anything in the ToS or AUP which says we can't do these... | |
|
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Just do what I do I don't know how true the "legend" is, but I once heard about an individual who had a $.03 outstanding utility bill. The utility company wouldn't just write it off, so to extract his revenge, the customer paid it off as 3 separate credit card transactions. Same effect as yours, just at a smaller scale. | |
|
| | It only really matters... if you are going to use the recording in a court of law. I have my Galaxy S3 set to record every call I make or receive. Recordings can be posted online and occasionally the court of public opinion is much strong. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Time Warner is better Time Warner is better than Comcast. They own the system up at my Grandma's house in Maine and their rates are more reasonable and they have better customer support. I'm not a big fan of their equipment though because they use Cisco and I like Motorola equipment better. | |
|
| Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Re: Time Warner is better TWC is NOT better. Have you actually dealt with them on a personal level- as in a direct customer? And as a whole in more than one service area?
Also you do realize they're centralizing more and more of their operations now right? The same as they should have YEARS ago. And they use Cisco due to SA was purchased by Cisco. What are they going to do when MOT is completely gutted and sold to who ever? They could go to Pace, but then again; that's who the telcos use. | |
|
| | IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Time Warner is better I've dealt with their support on behalf of my grandma up in Maine and her bill is much more reasonable than my bill with Comcast. And I've actually have gotten things fixed on the first call to TWC vs several or more with Comcast. And TWC has better CSRs that are actually located in Maine. I got so fed up with Comcast that I kicked them to the curb for everything except Internet (DirecTV for TV and VZ for home phone).
Comcast may have better product offerings but TWC has better customer service and pricing.
If I could choose between the two cable operators, I'd take Time Warner.
There have been threads on DSLR about service going downhill where Comcast took over Time Warner systems during the Adelphia liquidation.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord. | |
|
| | recording made a difference i recorded my convo with the sales agent for TW and it wound up being the nail in the coffin for THEM when they tried to double cross me on the bill...
I recorded the sales agent giving me the price for the 50/5 service and i made him REPEAT that it was DEFINITELY for the 50/5 not the 30/5 which they notoriously switch for on your bill.
When i got my first bill, of course it was for more. I called in and told the billing person that i had been promised the 50/5 for a certain price and they suggested that i had "misunderstood" which service was quoted.
I insisted that their agent had RE-Confirmed the order and she said, "well, we recorded the call" and i told her, "well, so did i"
so i played her the recording. She got very quiet and put my call up to "TIER 2 CUSTOMER SERVICE".
Tier 2 got on the line and had absolutely ZERO recourse. I got my service for the price...
The Tier 2 guy said, "that was very fortunate that you had made that recording. Why would you do that?"
i told him i didn't trust them. | |
|
|
|
