Comcast

[Go Skins]

http://consumerist.com/2014/10/06/unhappy-customer-comcast-told-my-employer-about-complaint-got-me-fired/
 

IT BEGAN INNOCENTLY ENOUGH…

Conal began subscribing to Comcast service in early 2013 after he says he was sold a 9-month promotional pricing offer. But from the start, there were issues with his service, as he was being charged for set-top boxes that had yet to be activated. Additionally, someone at Comcast billing had misspelled Conal’s last name, meaning some of his bills were not being delivered.

He says he met with a Comcast rep in May 2013 about the billing issues and promised they would all be sorted out, but things only got worse.

A few months later, the promotional discount shrunk and Conal’s monthly bill increased by $20, in addition to still being charged for unactivated devices in his house. Comcast also twice charged him an additional $7 for a second modem he did not have.

Meanwhile, attempts to get a resolution from Comcast went unanswered.

CUTTING THE CORD

He attempted to cancel his service in Oct. 2013 but says a Comcast rep convinced him that the billing issues would be resolved and that he would get free DVR service and The Movie Channel for three months as compensation.

But things didn’t just continue as they had before; Comcast somehow managed to sink even lower than it had before, sending Conal about a dozen pieces of equipment that he didn’t order.

“There were a few DVRs, modem, standard boxes and equipment that I was unfamiliar with,” he says.

Making matters worse, Comcast billed him $1,820 for all this stuff he’d never requested and had no use for.

FURTHER DOWN THE ARTICLE:

WE KNOW WHERE YOU WORK

Remember how we briefly mentioned above that Conal worked for a large, prestigious accounting firm? Comcast certainly noticed that fact, especially since that firm is one that does business with Comcast.

At some point shortly after that call, someone from Comcast contacted a partner at the firm to discuss Conal. This led to an ethics investigation and Conal’s subsequent dismissal from his job; a job where he says he’d only received positive feedback and reviews for his work.

Comcast maintained that Conal used the name of his employer in an attempt to get leverage. Conal insists that he never mentioned his employer by name, but believes that someone in the Comcast Controller’s office looked him up online and figured out where he worked.

When he was fired, Conal’s employer explained that the reason for the dismissal was an e-mail from Comcast that summarized conversations between Conal and Comcast employees.

But Conal has never seen this e-mail in order to say whether it’s accurate and Comcast has thus far refused to release any tapes of the phone calls related to this matter.

And while his former employer did provide consulting services to Comcast, it was not the accounting firm that audited Comcast’s books. So Conal doesn’t quite see how mentioning the name of his employer would have helped gain him any leverage.

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.

[BengalRep85-9]

Profit by any means necessary.

 

It will be the downfall of us.

[Ben]

I cant wait for the TW-Comcast merger.  It will be a boon for consumers.  

[-GoBengals-]

they ARE the worst...

 

seems as soon as a got hooked up with an employee friends/family discount plan, all magical charges and issues were magically resolved...

[Go Skins]

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/comcast-hbo-basic-tv-internet-bundle-1201538854/

 

What does a pay-TV service targeted at people who have shunned paying for cable television look like?

Comcast is launching a new attempt to get “cord-nevers”: Its Xfinity Stream Internet-only TV service offers HBO and the major broadcast TV networks, both live and on-demand programming, for $15 per month to Comcast subs with standalone broadband service.

At $15, Xfinity Stream matches the retail price point of HBO Now, the premium cabler’s unbundled offering, available via Apple devices and Cablevision Systems. But Comcast’s over-the-top service also includes broadcast nets and other on-demand content, plus a cloud-based DVR.

 

Comcast has been in this neck of the woods before: In late 2013, the MSO debuted Internet Plus, a bundle with high-speed Internet service and a stripped-down channel lineup featuring HBO and broadcast nets, which it has marketed with limited success.

 

But the Internet Plus bundle still requires a set-top box, and it’s largely engineered around watching TV on TV. The Stream service, by contrast, doesn’t require a set-top box — or even a TV set — and is available across tablets, phones and computers. Live TV feeds in Xfinity Stream are available only in customers’ homes; on-demand titles and DVR recordings may be access anywhere in the U.S.

 

“We want to make ordering Stream as easy as buying a song online,” Matt Strauss, EVP and G.M. of video services at Comcast, said in announcing the new service Monday.

 

Comcast will first launch Stream in Boston at the end of the summer, according to Strauss, followed by Chicago and Seattle. By early 2016, the company plans to make it available across its entire footprint.