Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Awesome Advice - Record your calls


 Now everyone is recording their nightmare Comcast calls

Tim Davis got a refund from Comcast, but only because he recorded his calls with customer service



Tim Davis, a Comcast customer and YouTube user, is the latest to go public with his tale of injustice at the hands of the cable company's customer service agents.
Yesterday, Davis posted a 14-minute video detailing how the company promised him he wouldn't be charged for something, charged him anyway, and then refused to undo the charges until Davis revealed that he had recorded the initial call.
"What have we learned today? Well for one thing, always record your calls with big companies," Davis says in the end of the video.
Basically, Davis moved from one Comcast service area to another and completed the self-install according to Comcast's instructions. When the service got spotty, he called Comcast. He was told it was a problem on the company's end and assured that a technician visit would not result in charges because it was an "outside issue."
The tech came and the issue was resolved. But the following month, Davis received a bill for about $182 in charges for the "failed self install" and, mysteriously, a wireless network setup he says never occurred.
After a few rounds with customer service agents, Davis is informed that $100 of the charges were actually offset by "discounts" on his bill, but he's still on the hook for $82. He ends up on the phone with a customer service agent who repeatedly claims the charges are valid and that she cannot credit him the full amount.
She offers a $60 credit on his internet service, which would have brought his obligation down to $22, but Davis insists the charges were not valid and demands a full refund. He plays the recording of his initial call, in which an agent says there will be no charge for the technician's visit.
After listening to the recording, the rep promises to get back to him within an hour. Roughly 90 minutes later, she does. The full amount is credited to Davis's account because, she says, she told her supervisor that there was a recording of the call. "Since I advised my manager that there is a recording, and you were misinformed, then she is the one who can approve that $82 credit."
"You're telling me that if I didn't have a recording of that call, you wouldn't have been able to do it?" Davis asks.
"Yes, that is correct," she says.
The story is now circulating on Reddit and various media outlets, but Davis's experience is hardly unusual. Last week, Dann Furia blogged about his Comcast nightmare, which involved $1,320 in charges, 17 phone calls, and six appointments. Similar stories abound in the Comcast subreddit, which is for "venting about your shitty experiences with Comcast."
The Verge also received a number of these stories from frustrated customers who have been following the Comcast Confessions series, which is about the underlying issues that lead to bad customer service at the cable company. Many stories spanned months of frustration over things like unburied wires after half-finished installations, long hold times — one gentleman says the department he was waiting to speak with actually closed while he was on hold — and unexpected charges.
Davis's story comes roughly three weeks after AOL exec Ryan Block published a frustrating call with Comcast that has been listened to more than 5 million times. Comcast, which has proposed a merger with Time Warner Cable that would increase its subscriber base by more than a third, says improving customer service is "one of our number one priorities."

Update, 3:30PM: Comcast sent a statement: "This is not the type of experience we want our customers to have, and we will reach out to Mr. Davis to apologize to him. Our policy is not to charge for service visits that are related to problems with our equipment or network. We are looking into this to understand what happened and why it happened."





http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/11/5991525/now-everyone-is-recording-their-nightmare-comcast-calls



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suUzvYV8TV4

Monday, August 4, 2014

Comcast's internal handbook

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/4/5967255/this-is-comcasts-internal-handbook-for-talking-customers-out-of


This is Comcast's internal handbook for talking customers out of canceling service

"Retention specialists" can be pretty persuasive


Remember that Comcast customer service representative who just wouldn't let Ryan Block cancel his service? That employee was in Comcast's retention department, which is a customer's last stop on their way out.
Retention specialists are trained to persuade a customer to stay, or at least not cancel all their lines of service.
"We locked down the ability for most customer service reps to disconnect accounts," a billing systems manager who worked for Comcast from 2008 to 2013 told The Verge. "We queue the calls for customers looking to disconnect to a retention team who are authorized to give more deeply discounted products to keep subscribers. Even if the subscriber disconnects cable, maybe we can keep them on internet or voice."
A current employee at Comcast who participated in the Comcast Confessions series provided The Verge with a copy of the 20-page guidelines the company uses for retention specialists. The guidelines are divided into 13 sections:
1. Greet customer clearly
2. Clarify reason for call
3. Relate and empathize
4. Take control
5. Set the agenda
6. Ask targeted questions
7. Consider unstated needs / active listening
8. Take ownership / make offer
9. Overcome objections
10. Close the save
11. Confirm details
12. End on a positive note
13. Documentation
Following each guideline — from greeting the customer clearly to avoiding "trap words" like "disconnect, downgrade, cancel" — earns the specialist more points. Other actions, such as forgetting to perform a credit check or failing to attempt to save the customer, are "auto-fail behaviors."
It's pretty standard call center stuff, but Comcast throws in some of its own tactics. If a customer is calling to cancel cable because they only watch Netflix, the rep is directed to push an internet speed upgrade. If a customer who says they're moving declines to provide a new address, Comcast warns the rep to "ask probing questions" because the customer "may instead be planning a move to a competitor." If a customer wants to check with their roommates before agreeing to a sale, the rep is supposed to communicate urgency by reminding the customer how tough it is to get an installation appointment.
Reps are also encouraged to build rapport with customers with lines like, "Enjoy Game of Thrones tonight." It's all about keeping or adding as many RGUs, or revenue-generating units, as possible.
Reps are also encouraged to build rapport with customers with lines like, "Enjoy Game of Thrones tonight"
Comcast has stock responses for every reason customers might want to cancel: bill too expensive, competitive offer, promotion expiring, don't use the service, technical or customer service issue, move, rate increase, or extended vacation. "What do you value the most about your current services? You mentioned you had a wife and children. How do they enjoy _____ (per RGU)?"
The biggest takeaway for customers may be on pages 11 and 12, where Comcast outlines the scenarios in which it is not possible to save the customer. If you're having trouble canceling your service, one of these lines might work. (Although not always; one commenter on The Awl claims a Comcast retention specialist once asked her if she truly wanted to move somewhere where there was no Comcast service.)
Save Attempt is Not Applicable in the Following Scenarios
Customer is moving in with an existing Comcast customer (CAE must verify Comcast services active at new address)
Customer is moving to a non-Comcast area (CAE must verify by looking up zip code)
Account holder is deceased / incapacitated
Temporary / seasonal disconnect and Seasonal Suspend Plan is not available in their area
Natural disaster
Customer doesn't know what address they're moving to
Block should have told his persistent retention specialist that he was moving to, say, Iceland.
Read the full guidelines below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235832382/Comcast-Quality-Guidelines-Retention

Monday, July 7, 2014

Latest Channel Line-up

I just noticed that channel 53-2 has switched from CMT (Country Music TV) to GetTV, a Sony Pictures Television Network consisting of pre-1970s classic feature films. Thought it a good time to update my channel line-up.
 
 
 
North Hills Pittsburgh O.T.A. (over the air) Channel Line-up 7/7/2014
2.1 ~ KDKA (CBS affiliate)

4.1 ~ WTAE (ABC affiliate)

4.2 ~ WTAE (THIS TV Network) reruns of vintage movies and TV programs

4.3 ~ WTAE (ABC affiliate) (North Hills translator/repeater for a better signal)

4.4 ~ WTAE (THIS TV Network) (North Hills translator/repeater for a better signal)

7.1 ~ WTRF (CBS Affiliate) Wheeling WV

7.2 ~ WTRF (FOX and/or myTV network) Wheeling WV

7.3 ~ WTRF (ABC affiliate) Wheeling WV

9.1 ~ WTOV Steubenville, Ohio (NBC Network affiliate)

9.2 ~ WTOV (MeTV - "Memorable Entertainment" TV) classics from the 1950s through the 1980s

11.1 ~ WPXI (NBC Network affiliate)

11.2 ~ WPXI (MeTV - "Memorable Entertainment" TV) classics from the 1950s through the 1980s

13.1 ~ WQED-HD (main WQED programming / PBS)

13.2 ~ WQED-D1 (WQED-DT2 programming / Create Channel)

13.3 ~ WQED-D2 (WQED-DT3 programming / Neighborhood Channel)

13.4 ~ WQED-D3 (WQED-DT4 programming / Additional Neighborhood Channel)

16.1 ~ (ION TV) national television network featuring general entertainment & movies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_tv

16.2 ~ (qubo TV) Childrens TV programming

16.3 ~ (IONLife TV) dedicated to lifestyle programming - mostly 80's, 90's & 00's movies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Life

16.4 ~ (ION affiliate) ION Life or ION Shopping Channel depending on time of day.
 
16.5 ~ Home Shopping Network
 
16.6 ~ QVC - Home Shopping

19.1 ~ WPCW (CW network) Formally UPN & WB. Various original & rerun programming.

22.1 ~ WPMY (myTV network) mostly syndicated programming

40.1 ~ WPCB (Cornerstone TV) Christian television station

40.2 ~ BDC (Cornerstone TV) Christian television station

40.3 ~ WPCB (Cornerstone TV) Christian television station

40.4 ~ CTVN (Cornerstone TV) Christian television station

53.1 ~ WPGH (FOX affiliate)

53.2 ~ GetTV - Pre-70's movies from Sony Pictures

59.1 ~ WBGN - entertainment news, variety shows, and celebrity profiles

59.2 ~ QVC - Home Shopping (different than 16.6)

59.3 ~ RTV - (Retro Television Network) reruns of vintage movies and TV programs

59.4 ~ LWN - (Live Well Network) - home, health and lifestyle programming
  
61.1 ~ Home Shopping Network (same as 16.5)

61.2 ~mostly paid programming

65-1 ~ WPDN - (Daystar Television Network) - Christian Programming 

66.1 ~ WNNB

66.2 ~ QVC

66.3 ~ RTV

66.4 ~ LWN

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Aereo Loses the Battle

This decision is like watching your step-mother going over a cliff in your brand new car!


..."if the decision comes down on the side of Aereo, then the broadcasters could revolt. "It’s possible that networks may decide to move their popular programming over to a paid service if the Supreme Court should rule in Aereo’s favor," said Grant Whipple, Consumer Electronics Product Manager for Winegard Company, an antenna manufacturer not affiliated with Aereo. In an interview with DealNews, Whipple said antenna producers like Winegard are watching this case very closely, as such a negative reaction from broadcasters could hurt antenna sales — and antenna users — in general."

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/25/united-states-supreme-court-aereo/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

US Supreme Court rules Aereo's streaming service is illegal under copyright law


In a precedent-setting decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that Aereo is in violation of US copyright law. The decision states that Aereo's use of tiny antennas hooked up to cloud DVR technology violates the right of companies producing broadcast content. Specifically, the decision says that Aereo's business violates the 1976 Copyright Act; the act states that individuals or businesses are violating copyright if:
1: perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
2: to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work ... to the public by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public are capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places at the same time or at different times
In the case of Aereo, the Supreme Court says the company's service is tantamount to "a performance or display of the work."
The decision is backed up by the Supreme Court's history with cable companies. In 1976, the Copyright Act deemed the rebroadcast of airwave-based television via cable a performance. As a result, cable companies had to pay broadcast networks for access to content. Today's ruling states that Aereo is essentially in the same boat as cable TV companies. "Aereo's activities are substantially similar to those of the [cable television] companies that Congress amended the Act to reach," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer writes.
Aereo's argument was that, since it only rebroadcasts shows that its users choose and save on customer-assigned DVR machines, its users were retransmitting/performing. More simply: each Aereo subscriber is assigned an individual DVR machine and antenna. Since each user must choose what they watch (unlike cable, which is a feed of every channel all the time), Aereo argued that it's not a rebroadcaster, but its users are (which is legal). Instead, Aereo thinks of itself as a hardware provider. That hardware (DVR machines and antennas) provide a service. Associate Justice Breyer disagrees: "We conclude that Aereo is not just an equipment supplier and that Aereo 'perform[s].'"
The nine Supreme Court justices were split six to three, with justices Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan in favor, while justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia were against. Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion of the court.
Update: Cablevision, a Northeast US cable company, offered the following statement on today's ruling:
"We are gratified that the Court's decision adopted a sensible middle ground, holding that unlicensed retransmission services like Aereo violate the copyright law, while protecting consumer-friendly, cloud-based technologies, such as RS-DVR. The real winner today is the consumer who will continue to benefit from future innovation."
Cablevision was in a particularly awkward situation with regards to the case, as it previously battled similar copyright law to keep selling its cloud DVR technology. As the statement above notes, Cablevision is particularly pleased with today's ruling because it both pushes against Aereo's business model (which competes with cable TV) and provides space for services like cloud DVR to exist.
Update 2: The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which serves as the mouthpiece for the broadcast companies which sued Aereo, issued a statement regarding today's ruling as well:
"NAB is pleased the Supreme Court has upheld the concept of copyright protection that is enshrined in the Constitution by standing with free and local television. Aereo characterized our lawsuit as an attack on innovation; that claim is demonstrably false. Broadcasters embrace innovation every day, as evidenced by our leadership in HDTV, social media, mobile apps, user-generated content, along with network TV backed ventures like Hulu.

Television broadcasters will always welcome partnerships with companies who respect copyright law. Today's decision sends an unmistakable message that businesses built on the theft of copyrighted material will not be tolerated."
Update 3: Aereo itself has finally issued a statement. It's a long one, but here it is in full:
"Today's decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We've said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today's decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, 'to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.' (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?

"Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country's fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle."

Justice Scalia's dissent gets its right. He calls out the majority's opinion as 'built on the shakiest of foundations.' (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that 'The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, seeante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.' (Dissent, page 11)"

We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world."
An interesting read on "cord cutting" from MarketWatch.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story?guid=560c83cc-fb21-11e3-ae23-00212803fad6

June 24, 2014, 11:37 a.m. EDT

If you haven’t cut the cord on cable TV, you should

Insight: Stand up to cable companies in the most powerful way you can

By Nat Worden

Apple
If you like being offered free stuff by huge companies, try calling your cable provider and informing them that you’ll be canceling TV service in favor of an Internet-only connection. I did, and it was gratifying.
MarketWatch Interactive: CUTTING THE CABLE CORD
Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.
I’m a Cablevision Systems (NYSE:CVC)   customer in rural Connecticut, and I subscribed to the company’s “triple-play” Internet, TV and phone service for years. I’m a busy professional and a parent of small children, so I have little time for watching TV these days, and this service was expensive relative to my actual usage — except for the Internet service, which I need for all sorts of things.
After purchasing Apple TV (NASDAQ:AAPL)  , it became clear that I no longer needed cable TV service, and I rarely used a wireline phone. When I called Cablevision to cancel those items, they kept me on hold for an eternity to connect to their “Retention Department,” which didn’t seem appropriate to me.
When I finally got through, their representatives offered me several rounds of discounted promotional offerings to keep their TV service, which kept getting cheaper as I rejected them one after another. Then they gave up, and I returned my monstrous, electricity-draining cable box with it’s god-awful user interface and remote control that never worked (yes, I tried changing the batteries). That may have been the most satisfying errand I have ever run as a consumer.
On Wall Street, this is known as “cord-cutting,” and it’s a trend that’s developing among consumers — particularly the young. Many analysts argue this is something that’s only happening on the margins, and it’s unlikely to affect the pay-TV business in a substantial way. I suspect they’re wrong, and that we’ll reach a tipping point in the not-too-distant future at which most consumers will decide the Internet is an adequate medium for serving all their entertainment and information needs and traditional pay-TV subscriptions are no longer necessary or relevant.
Now, I pay about $60 a month for Cablevision’s broadband service — almost $100 less than I was paying — and I subscribe to Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX)  so my kids can watch commercial-free kid shows. I’m also trying Hulu Plus for online access to network TV shows. There’s also online video options for sports fans, like MLB.com, and you can buy all the great TV series a la carte on iTunes if you don’t mind being a little behind the curve — who can stay current on all these shows anyway? I’ve also been pleasantly surprised by Apple TV’s library of free video podcast selections, which are excellent, including some current news shows.
Oh, and then I can access the entire Internet on my computer, which has some good stuff on it too — including independent news and commentary sources that often better informed and more accurate than our mainstream, corporate news outlets.
I have absolutely nothing against Cablevision or any other cable company and all the great people who work for them. In fact, I’ve seen Cablevision CEO Jim Dolan sing and play guitar in his rock band — he’s surprisingly talented and has excellent taste in music. I just like having options as a consumer.
I tried AT&T’s (NYSE:T)   U-Verse Internet service, which finally made it to my neighborhood, but it was too slow. So, like many Americans, I only have one real choice for quality Internet service, and according to the Federal Communications Commission, we pay more for Internet service than consumers in other developed countries — often substantially more — and in return, we get lower quality service.
I don’t know how this situation could sit well with any red-blooded American capitalist, except for one who is benefitting from it handsomely, like Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA)   CEO Brian Roberts. He wasn’t kidding when he recently justified Comcast’s impending acquisition of Time Warner Cable (NYSE:TWC)   by saying the two companies don’t compete. A handful of cable companies have divided up the country, and their territories don’t overlap — there really is no competition between them.
If this sounds like the way a monopoly works, that’s because it is. Therefore, we should have federal regulations — like real net neutrality rules and other consumer protections — imposed on the nation’s Internet service providers in order to promote access and competition, which would help our economy grow and innovate in the digital age.
Unfortunately, our federal government appears to be woefully corrupt and dysfunctional to most sensible people of all political leanings, and the telecommunications industry is able to deploy its lobbying strength on Capitol Hill to get basically everything it wants. This has troubling ramifications for our nation’s media future at a time when we’re undergoing a massive transformation in communications technology.
If we have limited sway over this situation as voters, though, we do have some leverage that we can wield in the free market as consumers, which is why everyone should consider their options for cutting the cord, saving money, and pressuring the handful of giant companies that control our media and access to the Internet to stop standing in the way of technological progress and move out from behind their old business model to compete for audiences on the new media playing field. 

Nat Worden is a journalist whose work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Outside Magazine, Newsday, The Village Voice and elsewhere. He’s a vice president with GoodWorks Insurance, an independent insurance brokerage. Follow him on Twitter @NatWorden