dslreports logo
When You're Getting TOO Good A Deal From Comcast
Getting a call from Comcast's security audit department
While we've frequently noted how you can haggle with your broadband/TV/VoIP operator to get a better deal on service -- occasionally somebody slips by a carrier's internal routines and gets just too good of a deal. That's the case with this poster in our Comcast forum, who, because of a series of service problems, has seen a slew of account credits resulting in him getting nearly $300 worth of service (including 7 free HD DVRs) for free. The user (who started a Twitter account to track the process), says he's been notified by a Comcast security audit specialist whose job is to make sure Comcast representatives didn't over-credit the user. Looking at a copy of the user's bill, it's not hard to see what set off flags at Comcast HQ, but at the same time it was Comcast who applied this endless sea of credits for supposedly legitimate service interruption issues.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

FFH5

Premium Member

Maybe getting credits from friend or relative on inside

Maybe they are checking to make sure there is not some scam going on where the customer is friends with or related to the person applying credits.

Were the credits applied by the same person at Comcast?

Sort of similar to what my sister sees when she monitors checkout cashiers who are letting relatives go thru the checkout line without paying for some items.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

baineschile

Premium Member

Re: Maybe getting credits from friend or relative on inside

Haggling with companies is possible for discounts; this guy is getting the farm for free though.

voiplover
Premium Member
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH

voiplover

Premium Member

Re: Maybe getting credits from friend or relative on inside

This subscriber went through comcast service hell. His internet kept going down and the techs had to start at the least expensive repair first. In this rare case, it was an expensive fix that needed to be taken.
To keep the customer, comcast offered free DVR's (at little cost to comcast), and extended TV channels that the customer probably would not have subscribed to. Not a big expense to comcast.
Eventually a copy of the subscriber's bill circulated the internet and caused interest from other regional comcast's security specialists. When an inquiry was done, no record of any audits from that location was found. This looked like cause to fire the local security team and in response cause an immediate audit of the account.
The sub was not at fault, nor were the service techs. As for the security personnel, some heads probably did roll.

In the long run, comcast came through. They fix the subs issues and reinstated all the free bees they had offered.
Personally, I would have dumped comcast long before, so don't get the idea that all those perks were free. They were re inbursements for the loss and hassle the sub went through.

Just my opinion.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Now come on...

"nearly $300 worth of service (including 7 free HD DVRs) for free"

Someone is gaming the system.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

I thought the same thing. I've never gotten such credits from a company. Either this guy has been through the ringer when it comes to service and/or billing issues, or there's some funny business going on.

FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

FastiBook

Member

Re: Now come on...

I dunno, several big companies have gone well far above and beyond more than once for me:

Comcast, Verizon, At&t, Continental airlines, Apple inc, Best Buy, Bank of America...

Free repairs/replacements vs charge/buy new, extensive quality control & compensation for my troubles, flexibility in light of my own personal financial difficulties...

These were not just small things they did, and not just once. I stand by these companies and recommend them to people based solely on policy history (environmental/ethical stuff) & my personal experience.

For example:

VZ was contacted about FIOS system on the fritz at 3 am on a sunday, a day later by 5 pm and we have a 100% new set of FIOS equipment and a month free for the trouble.

Because of a repair that resulted in a 28 day wait for me, apple compensated me an iPod back in 2002. I was taking music courses at the time, and needed my iBook to transport files and projects between home and school. Used iPod in the mac only music lab as external HD. Saved the day! After i got this unit back broken, i was offered a brand new updated model free. I have since changed to in-store repairs and been 100% satisfied ever since.

Att allowed me to pay my bill in 2 parts, one half of it overdue by 2 weeks without service interruption and without penalty because of an unforeseen event i had to deal with, got me my iPhone for free because of huge mistakes on their behalf concerning my acct, and several other things..

Best buy gave me a new LCD tv after mine showed signs of issues, took me all of 5 minutes, and they let me keep the original box so i could take the new set home protected. It was not under warrantee. This was 3 months after i bought it initially.

I could go on, but i'd rather just know who i'd rather do business with vs sell people w/ their own strong opinions and own experiences.

- A

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: Now come on...

All of your examples show good customer service and not that you were gaming the system. I don't think that any of your examples would raise any eyebrows.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties

Premium Member

Re: Now come on...

Yeah, but SEVEN HD DVRs ??? Come on. That is no average user/homeowner.

Those units are not cheap. But are built cheap!

I smell an attorney, or other "abuser-entitlement-saavy" whiner that pulled a smooth one outta ComSpastic...

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

1 recommendation

bUU to battleop

Member

to battleop
Absolutely, and on the odd chance that that was not the situation in this specific case, there is no question that a substantial number of the annoyances in our technological world, DRM for music and video, video game online activation, cable and satellite television encryption, etc., all are reflections of the selfishness and greed of consumers who game the system and try to exploit beyond what is reasonable and respectable.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

I'll agree with some of that, but not all. DRM is one where I disagree. I think that one has more to do with the media companies looking for additional revenue streams they couldn't get otherwise. The reason I say this is because DRM does precious little to stop real piracy. Hell, I don't even do it, but I can easily crack a DVD and copy it, although I consider myself technically savvy. What it does do is keep normal consumers "in line" from the companies' perspective. Want to play that DVD on a computer without a DVD drive? Forget about loading it onto the hard drive. You'll need to buy a digital copy for that. What about playing your bought and downloaded music on your car stereo/hard drive player? Only if the music company gives permission, which may come at an additional cost. And remember the old Divx players sold at Circuit City? If you bought one of the discs they played, even if you paid to get unlimited rights to use it, forget about taking it to a friend's house to watch, unless you carried along the player it was married to. Much easier just to pay for another rental when you go over there. Unless, of course, you're smarter than the average bear or a true pirate, in which case, you can get around these measures pretty easily.

DRM isn't about piracy. It's about creating additional revenue streams by limiting consumers' ability to use the media they bought.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

I'll agree with some of that, but not all. DRM is one where I disagree. I think that one has more to do with the media companies looking for additional revenue streams they couldn't get otherwise.
That's ridiculous. If it wasn't for the selfish transgressions of pirates, there would be no need for DRM: Everyone would pay for all the music they wish to listen to.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

The reason I say this is because DRM does precious little to stop real piracy.
Also ridiculous. DRM does a lot to discourage a lot of piracy. It makes piracy more difficult, eliminating the piracy by casual pirates.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

What it does do is keep normal consumers "in line" from the companies' perspective.
No different any of the other examples, all of which you agreed with. It essentially means that your perspective is inconsistent, perhaps driven by your own personal desires rather than any sense of what is actual. Personally, I wish I got every thing for free. That's not realistic, though.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

DRM isn't about piracy.
Of course it is.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

It's about creating additional revenue streams by limiting consumers' ability to use the media they bought.
Incorrect. It is about protecting revenue streams by limiting consumers' ability to take more than they actually paid for.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

Really? Then why can't I download the HD content I recorded with my DVR so I can keep it on a disc, allowing me to free up space on the machine? I could do unlimited recordings with my VCR, since I could just keep buying new tapes, but my DVR content is locked up inside that little box, presumably so I can't loan a friend a show I record or keep them on the shelf for 15 years or how ever long I like.

And how about the issue of when a company decides to retire a music service and take down the DRM servers, as MS and Yahoo were planning to do. That would have essentially locked songs to the last devices they'd been loaded on, with no hope of moving them to another device.

Or how about the Kindle incident where Amazon just deleted books people had paid for because Amazon had screwed up when getting the rights? "But they refunded the purchase price," you say. OK, how would you like it if you bought a TV from a local store, only to come home and find it gone one day, with a check and note telling you that the store had neglected to pay their supplier, so they took back the TV, but here's a check for the amount you paid for it?

No, DRM is about protecting companies at the expense of consumers.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Really? Then why can't I download the HD content I recorded with my DVR so I can keep it on a disc, allowing me to free up space on the machine?
Because that isn't what you paid for.

If you don't like the terms and conditions, then do without.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

No, DRM is about protecting companies at the expense of consumers.
DRM is about protecting assets. If there weren't any consumers who would use content in a manner beyond the uses for which it is priced and being sold, then there would be no need for DRM. It is only the opportunistic nature of consumers seeking to derived more value than they are paying for that necessitates copy protection.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

Ah, see, now there's something we can agree on. It's all about protecting profits. But while the ways I can use the content I paid for seem to be getting more and more restricted, I don't see the price coming down.

And you still didn't address the points I made about DRM allowing content to be revoked after purchase, either because of a server being decommissioned (MS and Yahoo) or because of a mistake by the seller (Amazon). If I buy something, it's mine, not just mine unless the seller decides to yank it back for one reason or another. You talk about consumers respecting the uses for which they have paid. Well, that respect has to cut both ways. I never saw a kill switch on the records, tapes, or CD's I bought, and I sure don't want them on my digital content.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

2 edits

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Ah, see, now there's something we can agree on. It's all about protecting profits. But while the ways I can use the content I paid for seem to be getting more and more restricted, I don't see the price coming down.
Would you rather see the price go up at a much more substantial rate... perhaps an immediate increase of an order of magnitude?

You have all the power: If you don't think the offering is worth the price, given the terms and conditions, then do without it.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

And you still didn't address the points I made about DRM allowing content to be revoked after purchase, either because of a server being decommissioned (MS and Yahoo) or because of a mistake by the seller (Amazon).
If you don't think the offering is worth the price, given the terms and conditions, then do without it.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If I buy something, it's mine, not just mine unless the seller decides to yank it back for one reason or another.
Your problem is that you think you're buying music or buying video. You're not. Music and video is not for sale at iTunes or Amazon. All they sell is licenses, and media that make the licenses work. If you want to actually buy music or video, you're going to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars per.

This is one of those things that unknowledgeable customers don't realize: They think, for example, that because they buy a CD, if the CD breaks, or wears out, or gets lost or stolen, that the distributor owes them a new CD because they "bought that music forever". That's false. It's a consumer's delusion. The reality is that when you buy content you buy license to use one copy for as long as the media that carried that copy survives. That's the law. That's the reality. (There is one exception applicable to the general public: Computer software.)
said by ISurfTooMuch:

You talk about consumers respecting the uses for which they have paid. Well, that respect has to cut both ways.
The problem is that you apparently were not aware of precisely what you were purchasing. If you were, you'd realize that the distributors are indeed respecting the terms and conditions of the agreement between you and them.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

A CD wearing out I can understand. A company intentionally turning off their DRM servers, which essentially kills the content, is something completely different. Same with the 1984 issue. If I buy the content in good faith, Amazon has no right to remove it from my Kindle. If they screwed up on securing the rights, that's their problem, not mine. The content should stay put, and Amazon should have to pay the publisher to make it right. I held up my part of the bargain, so leave me out of it.

And be very careful what you wish for if you are so fond of the licensing model. I presume you own a car or some other similar vehicle. How'd you like it if the automakers decided you could no longer purchase a vehicle? From now on, for the same price you pay now, you will receive a license to use one. You'll pay for gas, maintenance, repairs, etc., but you won't actually own it. It will remain in your possession indefinitely, unless, of course, you violate some provision in your agreement, in which case you must immediately return the vehicle without refund. And since this vehicle isn't really yours, you can't resell or trade it. Sounds sort of like a lease, except that 1) you will pay the same amount you pay now to buy one, and 2) all vehicles will be made available this way, so you can either license one or walk.

And this same model can be applied to basically anything: houses, appliances, electronics, anything. With a model like this, you might even be required to return the item after a certain period. For recycling, you know. So, see, it all benefits the environment, and it also gives the manufacturer all that material to be used to build and license new products.

So if you like the idea of a cut-throat, it's our way or the highway, take it or leave it form of capitalism, then go for it. Just don't come crying here when you eventually get shafted by some company that pulls a fast one on you. After all, it's nothing personal; they're just protecting their assets.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

A CD wearing out I can understand. A company intentionally turning off their DRM servers, which essentially kills the content, is something completely different.
Perhaps it is. The courts would decide, if it ever actually became an issue.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If I buy the content in good faith, Amazon has no right to remove it from my Kindle.
Unless their doing so is in compliance with the terms and conditions.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

If they screwed up on securing the rights, that's their problem, not mine.
True, but your remedy might be a refund. Again, it depends on the law, and the terms and conditions. See above.

I understand that you want the world all laid out the way you'd like it, but that's unreasonable.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

And be very careful what you wish for if you are so fond of the licensing model.
Fondness has nothing to do with it. I don't necessarily like anything I post about. 90% of the time I find myself simply trying to keep people from fostering unreasonable and damaging expectations in others -- it has nothing to do with me saying anything about what I'd personally prefer. Typically what I would prefer doesn't matter even a little -- as a matter of fact, that's often exactly the point I'm making when I post.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

I presume you own a car or some other similar vehicle. How'd you like it if the automakers decided you could no longer purchase a vehicle?
That is their prerogative, if that is what they wish. There is nothing you can, or should be able to do, to stop them from doing that if that is what they want to do. The fact that you seem to assume the opposite is actually a problem. You are making bad assumptions that have nothing to do with reality, and as a result, you're setting yourself (and anyone who might end up believing you) up for disappointment and dissatisfaction. In the case of car makers, I think the risk is too low to bother trying to correct your assumption. With digital content, the risk is high -- that you're essentially leading yourself and others to believe things that are not only not true, but will set them up to be surprised and upset by what they experience. That is worth trying to correct.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

The trap you are falling into is assuming that whatever terms put forward by a seller are reasonable, given a buyer's willingness to accept. That sounds fine in theory, but it isn't true in practice. Suppose, as an employer, I offer to hire you to work for me for $1/hour. Is that reasonable? Depends on where we're located. In a country with either no or low minimum wage laws, it'd be perfectly legal. In the United States, however, it isn't. I can't make such an offer, and, even if I did, you can't accept it.

The same holds true for the sale of goods or services. In a dry county, it may be perfectly legal for me to have a case of beer in my home, but I can't sell it to you, even if we're both willing to do so. Prostitution is also prohibited in many areas. You simply can't trade money or other items of value for sex. Nevada is an exception. Ticket scalping is yet another example. So is gambling. Payday loans are now starting to be regulated in some areas because they're viewed as preying on people who can't afford to pay them off. I may have the money you need, but I can't legally make such a transaction unless my terms are in line with the law.

You're talking about what can be done in a society with little regulation, where any offer can be made and accepted or rejected. I'm talking about what I consider fair for the consumer. We obviously don't agree on what is and isn't fair.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

The trap you are falling into is
Cut the bull. I'm not falling into any trap. That's nothing short of flame-baiting, and pretty lame flame-baiting AFAIC.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

assuming that whatever terms put forward by a seller are reasonable, given a buyer's willingness to accept.
If the terms are unreasonable, only an idiot or a fraudster would accept the offer and patronize the service.

If you feel the terms are unreasonable, do without the service.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

That sounds fine in theory, but it isn't true in practice. Suppose, as an employer, I offer to hire you to work for me for $1/hour. Is that reasonable? Depends on where we're located. In a country with either no or low minimum wage laws, it'd be perfectly legal. In the United States, however, it isn't. I can't make such an offer, and, even if I did, you can't accept it.
Because it is illegal.

There is nothing illegal about the terms and conditions we've been discussing in this thread. Just because you don't like the terms and conditions, doesn't make that illegal.
said by ISurfTooMuch:

The same holds true for the sale of goods or services. In a dry county, it may be perfectly legal for me to have a case of beer in my home, but I can't sell it to you, even if we're both willing to do so. Prostitution is also prohibited in many areas. You simply can't trade money or other items of value for sex. Nevada is an exception. Ticket scalping is yet another example. So is gambling. Payday loans are now starting to be regulated in some areas because they're viewed as preying on people who can't afford to pay them off. I may have the money you need, but I can't legally make such a transaction unless my terms are in line with the law.
Again, all a matter of law.

There is nothing illegal about the terms and conditions we've been discussing in this thread. Just because you don't like the terms and conditions, doesn't make that illegal.

Would you like to try a fifth analogy? Maybe one of these will actually be relevant...
said by ISurfTooMuch:

You're talking about what can be done in a society with little regulation, where any offer can be made and accepted or rejected. I'm talking about what I consider fair for the consumer. We obviously don't agree on what is and isn't fair.
No, you're trying to equate what you personally think is fair with what is the law. I'm telling you the actual law. The law defines the parameters of fairness that apply, not one consumer's personal preference.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

And the law is an interpretation of fairness as expressed by a legislative body. Whether what is legal is fair is always open to interpretation. Was slavery fair? I'd be willing to say no, but it was the law for a long time. On a more contemporary issue, is the current minimum wage fair? I suspect the answer you get depends on who you ask.

And nowhere did I say that my position is what is set forth in the current body of law. What I said is that I do not consider DRM fair, and it's obvious that you don't agree with me. We both hold an opinion, and it's obvious that neither one of us is going to convince the other of who is correct.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by ISurfTooMuch:

And the law is an interpretation of fairness as expressed by a legislative body. Whether what is legal is fair is always open to interpretation.
So put your money where your mouth is... take it to court. What I explain in the forum is what is, not what I or anyone else hopes things would be. If you want to traffic in hopes, that's fine for yourself, but don't drag other folks down into the cycle of dissatisfaction and disappointment that your unreasonable expectations would lead folks down into.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Now come on...

Um, I think the more appropriate venue is Congress. If you believe a law on the books is either being interpreted incorrectly or is just plain unconstitutional, then you go to court. If you think the current situation, whether dictated by law or allowed to exist because there is no law on the subject, is unfair, then you go to Congress.

And if you think that the DMCA is all peaches and cream and that everyone but me agrees with you, then maybe you ought to give Rick Boucher a call.
Expand your moderator at work

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to ISurfTooMuch

Member

to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:

Prostitution is also prohibited in many areas. You simply can't trade money or other items of value for sex.
On the other hand, it is regarded as OK to take someone out to dinner, a show, and give gifts (ie: "Having a 'Date'") in exchange for the expectation of having sex with the recipient. Seems like a double standard to me just because the recipient is reciprocating by having sex with more than one person as opposed to just one person.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

Re: Now come on...

You are comparing a date with prostitution?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to ISurfTooMuch

Member

to ISurfTooMuch
Give up. You are not going to convince bicker of anything unless it goes along with his "unlimited profit at all cost" mentality.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by Skippy25:

Give up. You are not going to convince bicker of anything unless it goes along with his "unlimited profit at all cost" mentality.
As opposed to your "unlimited consumerism at all cost" mentality? What's the value to society in that????

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven to bUU

Member

to bUU
I just *love* how people think that DRM is preventing pirates from stealing. This is just plain stupid. All it does is slightly annoy them and they'll find other ways to bypass and/or circumvent it.

All DRM does is restrict us. That's about it. The specified DRM-protected file will only be used only on a specific player (iPod, Zune, etc). Playing the file on a different player, although completely compatible with the music format, will end up not playing due to the DRM used.

I think DRM is just plain stupid. It's yet another way to annoy your customers.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Now come on...

said by SimbaSeven:

said by bUU:

DRM does a lot to discourage a lot of piracy.
I just *love* how people think that DRM is preventing pirates from stealing.
I just love how people pervert what others have posted to make it easier to argue against. Why not actually try to argue against what I actually wrote? Please stop committing intellectual dishonesty.
Expand your moderator at work

syslock
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
La La Land

syslock to ISurfTooMuch

Premium Member

to ISurfTooMuch
If your sick and tired of the junk Motorola Boxs, and shelling out tons of cash in rental fees for box's, setup your own PVR system.

I can do what I want with the content I recorded.
Watch it when, and where, and how I want to.

With my own server and HD200 boxs to each TV, they run circles around anything Motorola has shown us so far.
I was sick of the money grabbing from the Cable co.


RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to bUU

Member

to bUU
said by bUU:

said by ISurfTooMuch:

It's about creating additional revenue streams by limiting consumers' ability to use the media they bought.
Incorrect. It is about protecting revenue streams by limiting consumers' ability to take more than they actually paid for.
If I buy a DVD, am I paying for the unrestricted right to view it by placing the DVD into a DVD reader and feeding the output into a TV (or Computer) Screen? From what you say, I assume that this is what I am paying for (ie: The right to play/view the contents of the DVD on a TV Screen/Computer Monitor). Why then if I, for example, commute between the US and the UK, must I buy two copies of the same media based on where I am currently located if I want to view the DVDs I purchased?

••••••••••••

CptSpaulding
join:2009-07-21
Cincinnati, OH

CptSpaulding to battleop

Member

to battleop
Either he know the REP or the REPS are not smart enough to check his history and keep giving credits. Either way they shouldn't reverse any credits. He may have a hard time now in the future getting a credit for outages.
Dissonance
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Dissonance to battleop

Member

to battleop
He could know somebody personally who is giving the credits(which the investigation would probably find).
Or he could simply be having ongoing terrible service for an extended period. If that's the case then they need to train their reps to fix problems rather than throw credits at them.

Its not like the guy did this on his own.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

"nearly $300 worth of service (including 7 free HD DVRs) for free"

Someone is gaming the system.
And even WITH all those discounts, his bill came to $350 for the month.
»img18.imageshack.us/i/sc ··· 103.png/



Running a rooming house with all those outlets?

••••••••••

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

"nearly $300 worth of service (including 7 free HD DVRs) for free"

Someone is gaming the system.
It depends on the amount of complaining a customer does about the nightmare scenario that Comcast has inflicted upon them. I received 6 months for free (roughly $750 of service) because of the nature of my problem, and the incompetence of the 14 technicians that came out to my house. I certainly understand where service is given to appease a customer thats had bad experience....but I can also understand where 7 dvrs may raise a red flag.

nerdburg
Premium Member
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA

nerdburg

Premium Member

Meh

Meh, the whole story sounds like a load of crap to me.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

And this is why I don't trust Comcast

A couple of weeks ago, a door to door salesman came to me and told me he was signing up people for Comcast service (I have had FIOS for over a year and I am happy with it.)

He gave me a sheet that had some awesome deals on it. One was $88/month for Digital with Voice and Internet and a free DVR for one year. He also said he could keep the deals going after a year since he was the rep for the area and we could deal directly with him.

The reason I can't trust this is because when I first moved into my house, I got a similar deal with Comcast and when the promotion ended, so did the pricing and the CSR said the local rep, who sold me the service, gave "too good a deal" to be continued. Dropped my service to basic cable and got DSL. When FIOS came to my area, dropped Comcast.

Then, I get a phone call asking why I left. This wasn't a question and answer session but an inquisition challenging every point I made. Sorry, but when you try to bully your customers, then you have serious issues.

••••••••
mworks
join:2006-06-13
Rose Hill, NC

mworks

Member

There sre some legit ways to get discounts

There are some legit ways to get these kind of discounts. Call and threaten to cancel. Works for Directv and Dish network. Just call and tell them you want to go to the competitor because they gave you a better offer. I got cinemax for 99 cent a month for a year by doing that.

Warzau
Premium Member
join:2000-10-26
Naperville, IL

Warzau

Premium Member

I don't fault him

But I would tell them I would rather have my service work than get all the freebies. My comcast service had been flawless for 3 1/2 year then 2 years ago it has gotten bad so much I am calling every three weeks for dropout, CDV that can't synch. Very slow internet. They always test my house and jacks of course perfect since it's a new home with CAT6 wiring.

Then they find out the problem is at the pedestal. So much so that every time there is a problem, I just direct to the offending device and say, might as well go first to the pedestal. BUT every time I call for a truck run they offer me somthing, last time I got a really good deal, since I got two bad boxes that were mailers and I had to go get new ones from the local office, since the ones the truck brought out were older DCH boxes without HDMI even though I mentioned I wanted one when the apt was set up.

damonlab
Premium Member
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI

1 recommendation

damonlab

Premium Member

Looks abought right to me...

$14.13 for cable TV
$33.49 for Internet
$20.43 for phone

Seems like a fair price point for the customer, while still at a point where the provider is generating income. Ideally, this is where the prices should be set. The only reason this is even a story is because the providers have convinced the sheeple that everything should cost more than this.

•••

Time
Premium Member
join:2003-07-05
Irvine, CA

Time

Premium Member

Fishy

Why the hell would anyone need 7 DVRs? Better yet, what kind of Comcast Rep is going to give him a free DVR, after he's already had more than one on an account?

Something is fishy about that whole situation.

castsucks
@sbcglobal.net

castsucks

Anon

comcast rips you off on box rent anyways come on $15/$20 /m

comcast rips you off on box rent anyways come on $15/$20 /m per box vs direct where 7 boxes is just $30 /m + programing.

Where with comcast it is $105-$140 + programing.

•••••••