From the Pottstown Mercury:
"I called Comcast because I wanted the kitchen TV hooked up to cable," she said, describing how the digital TV converter box hadn't worked as planned. "They said no problem, we can do it, no extra charge." Tyson was already a Comcast subscriber before the incident Monday.
"They drilled right into the electrical box," Tyson said in disbelief, looking over at the side of her home where a long black burn mark extended up to the roof from a burnt electrical box and meter.
Luckily, she had a fire extinguisher handy or the damage might have been much worse. As it is, a local Fire Marshall told the paper that the damage was probably about $20,000 — and that Tyson would have to live somewhere else while the repairs are being made.
Comcast says they're taking all of this very seriously:
"Our first priority is the comfort and well-being of our customer and dog. The first thing we did was to offer accommodations while repairs are made to the home.
"We take this matter very seriously," [a Comcast spokesperson] said. "We are going to review the details of the fire with the contractor and local officials as they investigate."
House fire started by cable worker [Pottstown Mercury] (Thanks, Ed!)
(Photo:Tyler Yip)
@wchamilton: How else should they have responded? Maybe instead of "taking it seriously", they could take a long hard look at their subcontracting policies? Maybe even - gasp! - require subcons to have X credentials and Y amount of experience for all their employees?
In short, some sort of active prevention larger in scope than dropping this individual subcon?
]]>@durkzilla: I saw that for the first time last night, and now this. The juxtaposition is awesome.
As a side note: Those ads claim they're faster than FiOS. Anybody got a clue how that can be, given that cable lines aren't dedicated and copper absolutely cannot compete with fiber?
]]>This jogs my memory back to a Consumerist story a few months ago. It noted that, as part of Comcast's new Terms of Service Agreement (TOS), customers' now "agree" Comcast's limit of liability is $500 for any damages Comcast and/or its contractors cause to a customer's property.
I have a sneaky feeling Comcast isn't going to try imposing the limit in this case. As I noted in a previous post on the earlier story, it's doubtful a $500 liability limit would hold up in court and - even if the homeowner is subject to a binding arbitration clause in Comcast's TOS - the homeowner's insurance company can (and likely will) go after Comcast for the $20K in court if the insurance has to cover the damage.
Stay tuned: If Comcast doesn't pay for the damages, this may blow up into a five-alarm lawsuit that engulfs Comcast's TOS agreement.
]]>So I win anyway.
]]>But in reality, Comcast is doing the right thing here. They made a mistake, and they are making it right! Good Job
]]>South of you and we only have Mediacom. If you want something different, you have to get DirecTV (which I have) or Dish.
I can't bust Mediacom's butt too bad anymore. They paid two million dollars for naming rights to keep my ice rink open.
]]>Hey! Why not choose the better choice? No choice! Use the free signals present in the air. The whole U.S. is pure digital now and the picture is much better than the cr_apcastic compressed picture you get with Comcast!
]]>They will probably offer her a $20,000 credit on her bill and free HBO for 3 months. Now that's Comcastic!
]]>All meant with the best of intentions...
]]>that is exactly what makes it a monopoly.
people who would normally be participating in a market are choosing not to because a controlling firm is able to set a price above equilibrium because no other firms can enter that market.
This makes it an inefficient market, people who would normally pay a fair price for a service aren't paying it. And firms that would normally charge a fair price for the services are receiving any profits.
That means start up companies that would provide jobs and possibly better service at a better price are all lost. These inefficiencies are bad for everyone except the controlling firm.
]]>The only out-of-pocket the homeowner should have is their deductible, and you'd better believe I'd be all over Comcast to reimburse me for that.
]]>@dave_coder:
Sorry, WTF does your comment have to do with anything? Whether it's necessary or not is meaningless. Customer contracted with vendor for service. Vendor was negligent and caused a fire. Vendor is dragging feet in making customer whole for damaged caused by vendor.
Is there some part of this that escaped you?
Also, why do we care if there are other, more satisfactory customer service incidents? This one went grossly wrong.
Jesus.
]]>@Mike Gaertner:
I had an awesome Comcast experience today, and it's the first awesome experience I've ever had with a cable company, in 15+ years of having it.
I politely asked if there was a way to lower my $95 cable bill. I was prepared to give up my DVR and HD. The rep offered to lower my bill to $59 for the next six months with the same programming I have now. So that's one awesome experience (against at least 10 terribles ones over the years).
]]>that is usually correct. You don't go chasign after the subcontractor's insurance company, you let your insruance company do it. They have considerable more clout than we do, and things usually get taken care of a lot quicker.
]]>I think the point was that you can choose to not do business with the monopoly.
]]>I give bums on the street money because everyone needs to eat.
But all they do is buy 40's and crack.
]]>If or not it is a necessary service has nothing to do with if it is a monopoly. A monopoly is defined when; because of barriers to entry in a market cause a single firm can control that market setting a higher than equilibrium price, in this case for their crappy service, that does not allow the market to be fully saturated.
For example if you are not subscribing to this "non-necessary service" because the price is too high for the crappy service they provide, and a competing firm could provide it at a lower, but still profitable price in which you would willingly pay, but that competing firm is not allowed to enter the market because of the barriers to entry stated in the posts above, then the company providing the overpriced crappy service is a monopoly.
The problem with cable is the fixed cost of the wire infrastructure as pointed out above.
]]>@desterion: And 3 free months of HBO and Showtime...
]]>@wchamilton: Consumerist's write-up on the article was about the situtation in general, highlighting their choice of phrase. There is no mention of what they did or didn't do during the aftermath.
]]>Er, comfort.
]]>@wchamilton: I would agree that they are doing it right this time. I think the headline stems from the "taking it seriously" comment. Consumerist has a strong distaste for the empty, meaningless marketing phrase "taking it seriously".
]]>@sanjsrik: Generally grated goat is made from goat leg meat and served with a side of goat cheese and couscous. The grating really tenderises the meat perfectly.
]]>Comcast does not have the monopoly on inside wiring work at all.
]]>@Shadowfire: In the honored tradition of flogging terminal equines... Considering Comcasts service related history, I'm pretty sure neither the hookers or the blow offered would be of acceptable quality :)
]]>Having said that, Comcast being "close, yet so far" for WCIA two years running is a travesty...
]]>As for your second comment, while I do agree that most online comments are coming from those who have negative experiences, and I personally have experienced the improved customer service of Comcast, I wholly refute that for every bad experience, there are "hundreds that are awesome." Most likely, for every bad experience, there are a handful that are similarly bad, hundreds that are tolerable and a handful or good. Who has ever had an "awesome" experience waiting 3:59 minutes for the cable guy to show up in his 4hour window?
]]>Can she watch cable TV in her kitchen now?
]]>Comcast recently reduced my bill by half -- someone smelled churn on me when I went to return an awful half-assed receiver/DVR -- and I've still vowed to switch if I ever have a service call that absolutely requires a visit from an onsite tech. "Better" is not necessarily the same as "good."
]]>@JGKojak: Depending on your location in the KC area, you may be able to get AT&Ts Uverse service as well. I was a Uverse customer before I moved and I thought it was great. My current home doesn't get Uverse so I have satellite.
]]>I'm with you... they're doing it right this time.
]]>Also for all every bad experience you hear about there are hundreds that are awesome.
]]>How else should they have responded? Yeah, ComCast has an abysmal record in customer service but it seems to me here they're taking care of the situation in a very appropriate manner.
]]>I'm still pissed off over Comcast not winning WCIA 2009! Sure, AIG MAY have ruined your finances, at least they don't damage your house!
]]>I have crapcast as well...
My favorite- in the Kansas City area they conspired with Time-Warner to carve up the city-- so Olathe and Independence (large suburbs) get Comcast, while the rest of KC gets TW. Isn't this illegal?
Anyway... so the main Crapcast office is in Independence, 40 minutes from Olathe... and our office only has limited hours.
We do have Surewest as a competitor and I've considered making the switch.
]]>Sorry, these kinds of monopolies really grate my goat.
]]>