Comcast Customer Service
Saw this here: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-statement-regarding-customer-service-call
We are very embarrassed by the way our employee spoke with Mr. Block and Ms. Belmont and are contacting them to personally apologize. The way in which our representative communicated with them is unacceptable and not consistent with how we train our customer service representatives. We are investigating this situation and will take quick action. While the overwhelming majority of our employees work very hard to do the right thing every day, we are using this very unfortunate experience to reinforce how important it is to always treat our customers with the utmost respect.
This was in response to:
So I left a comment that Comcast keeps refusing to publish:
“Very embarrassed”? Seriously? Funny but I don’t think you or your ‘superiors’ were even slightly embarrassed when you spent $300K to try and deny the people of Longmont, CO the right to use their own fiber optic network. Luckily you failed. However, I think now you’re desperately trying to make that money back by chiselling on rates and making it hard for people to leave your service. As soon as Greenspeed or any other provider can get me access via fiber, ‘Comcast’ will become persona non grata in my house permanently. This just underlines how right that decision is. If you had one scrap of decency or ethics you’d have started with “this employee has been dismissed” – the fact you DIDN’T tells me this knucklehead was likely the spawn of one of your shiny-suited pinhead bosses. Fire the moron and give this customer ALL of his fees for the last year back, then I’ll start believing you’re ’embarrassed’ – not just chagrined like a streetwalker caught soliciting a teenager.
I’ve tried reposting a couple of times and Scumcast keeps sweeping it under the rug.
Sorry old boys, you can’t bury things forever. Word’s out, you’re a predator and it’s time you were put down.
2 thoughts on “Comcast Customer Service”
And this today: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/07/28/2028238/the-misleading-fliers-comcast-used-to-kill-off-a-local-internet-competitor
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes In the months and weeks leading up to a referendum vote that would have established a locally owned fiber network in three small Illinois cities, Comcast and SBC (now AT&T) bombarded residents and city council members with disinformation, exaggerations, and outright lies to ensure the measure failed. The series of two-sided postcards painted municipal broadband as a foolhardy endeavor unfit for adults, responsible people, and perhaps as not something a smart woman would do. Municipal fiber was a gamble, a high-wire act, a game, something as “SCARY” as a ghost. Why build a municipal fiber network, one asked, when “internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?” In the corner, in tiny print, each postcard said “paid for by SBC” or “paid for by Comcast.” The postcards are pretty absurd and worth a look.
http://beta.slashdot.org/story/209193 – (from Slashdot) An anonymous reader writes John Oliver calls it “cable company f*ckery” and we’ve all suspected it happens. Now on Steven Levy’s new Backchannel publication on Medium, Susan Crawford delivers decisive proof, expertly dissecting the Comcast-Netflix network congestion controversy. Her source material is a detailed traffic measurement report (.pdf) released this week by Google-backed M-Lab — the first of its kind — showing severe degradation of service at interconnection points between Comcast, Verizon and other monopoly “eyeball networks” and “transit networks” such as Cogent, which was contracted by Netflix to deliver its bits. The report shows that interconnection points give monopoly ISPs all the leverage they need to discriminate against companies like Netflix, which compete with them in video services, simply by refusing to relieve network congestion caused by external traffic requested by their very own ISP customers. And the effects victimize not only companies targeted but ALL incoming traffic from the affected transit network. The report proves the problem is not technical, but rather a result of business decisions. This is not technically a Net neutrality problem, but it creates the very same headaches for consumers, and unfair business advantages for ISPs. In an accompanying article, Crawford makes a compelling case for FCC intervention.