![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160972-100x100.png\")
Irony at its best - we've been assailed with the Comcast \"Fios sucks\" ad campaign showing the Fios installers burning down homes and digging up water lines.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-738213-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
@JGKojak:
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.
@HogwartsAlum: Not to mention their rates were far better than Comcast's. I used to live in Baldwin City and their promo rate jumped $20 after the year was up. My Comcast bill jumped over $50 when my promo rate was up. Explaining why I am no longer a digital cable subscriber.
@bickman2k:
I got a better deal from DirecTV and more channels. Of course, now that my promotional period is way over, my price has jumped. BUT - I still have the extra channels and it's the same as Mediacom's plain, unadorned, no-TMC-IFC-Discovery Health cable.
So I win anyway.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-753148-100x100.png\")
@JGKojak: That's not good at all! I rarely hear reports from the MO market, so I'm glad you're venting this frustration. I'll check into why the hours are so limited for your local office ASAP.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-149068-100x100.png\")
@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 still pissed off over Comcast not winning WCIA 2009! Sure, AIG MAY have ruined your finances, at least they don't damage your house!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-258324-100x100.png\")
@bloggerX: They may not have damaged it, but they likely had a hand in forcing many into foreclosure.
Having said that, Comcast being \"close, yet so far\" for WCIA two years running is a travesty...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-375741-100x100.png\")
I guess I'm confused... a subcontractor drilled through the electrical box and caused $20,000 of damage to the house. The incident was reported to Comcast who, if I read correctly, is seeing to it she has accomidations while the damage is repaired, I also assume at Comcast's expense. And they're participating in the investigation as to how this happened.
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.
@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?
@wchamilton: I think Comcast could be doing more. Why is the fire marshal talking to the homeowner's insurance company? That seems to indicate that her insurance is going to pay for the damage.
@Deborah Gray: Maybe it's like when you're in a car accident that isn't your fault. Your no-fault insurance initially pays but then they'll go after the other driver's insurance to recoup the expenses. I can bet that her homeowner's insurance is going to go right after the liability insurance of the subcontractor.
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.
@DefineStatutory: Exactly. Something like this happpens to my house and I really don't care how it gets fixed as long as it gets fixed. I bet as part of filing the claim I'd be asked for the name of the company that caused the damage. The \"average\" person will say Comcast. The insurance contacts Comcast, who in turn points them at the subcontractor.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-132151-100x100.png\")
@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.
@wchamilton: It seems to me they are doing it right (well, it's hardly fabulous customer service, but it'll do)... so far - although that \"We are going to review the details of the fire with the contractor and local officials as they investigate\" line has a somewhat ominous ring to it.
@wchamilton: Kexline is absolutely right. It isn't quite about how Comcast has handled the situation, it's how it started in the first place. Comcast has been known to hire contractors who barely know their right hands from their left, and these situations pop up all the time because of it. It shows that Comcast only cares about the customer when something goes wrong. If they would be willing to hire more experienced contractors, or someone who could recite the alphabet correctly, this never would have happened in the first place.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22777-100x100.png\")
@wchamilton: They have not offered all of their subscribers hookers and blow in return for inconveniencing her, so they haven't done their job.
I'm with you... they're doing it right this time.
@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 :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-857746-100x100.png\")
@Shadowfire: Agreed - that they're doing it right. The hookers and blow should wait until after the repairs are finished.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-414437-100x100.png\")
@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\".
@Shadowfire: They're doing it right this time, yes, but will it teach them to stop subcontracting their install and repair work to shaved apes?
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.\"
@Andrew Norton: Cable is not a necessary service. Don't forget this.
Also for all every bad experience you hear about there are hundreds that are awesome.
@dave_coder: Just where are the \"hundreds that are awesome\"? I maintain multiple homes and unfortunately I've yet to NOT have problems with the local cable companies. If I could get DirecTV/Dishnetwork reception at these places I'd be more than happy to use them instead.
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.
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.
@dave_coder: I am unsure what to make of your comment. Who cares if cable is not a necessary service? A monopolized, fire-starting business is still liable for their actions and deplorable for the service they provide.
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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-665956-100x100.png\")
@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).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-861868-100x100.png\")
@dave_coder: I agree, cable is not a necessary service. But why is it a monopoly in most parts of the country? Let the local government own the wire infrastructure. Then have multiple cable service providers. As for the maintenance of the wires? There is an opportunity for more companies!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-851357-100x100.png\")
Can she watch cable TV in her kitchen now?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-214802-100x100.png\")
I'm willing to bet comcast will offer about $1500 as generous compensation
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-285746-100x100.png\")
It's nice that they're concerned about the safety and well being of their dog. All pet owners should be so conscientious.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-716675-100x100.png\")
All I can say is.. That's COMCASTIC!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-135777-100x100.png\")
This seems like a parallel to,
I give bums on the street money because everyone needs to eat.
But all they do is buy 40's and crack.
she better get a hell of a lot more than $20k back for her troubles... There are fuckups and then there's royal fuckups like this that set people's houses on fire.
@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.
Comcast drilled through the main telco box coming into my home a few years ago, knocking out phone, fax and ISDN lines. Fortunately, they had to deal with Verizon to rectify the situation. I was getting the run around and had to call the PUC for help with Comcast.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-175610-100x100.png\")
I don't usually shoot the messenger, but the \"very seriously\" in quotes is getting a bit hackneyed, don't you think?
All meant with the best of intentions...
They will probably offer her a $20,000 credit on her bill and free HBO for 3 months. Now that's Comcastic!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
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!
You have to wonder who is really to blame on this one. Is it ultimately Comcast for not having screened their subcontractor for competency or the subcontractor for not taking the necessary precautions to insure not performing such a blunder? I had Comcast once in my life but never again, as it was Comcrapstic!
wow... and Comcast just started airing the Anti-Fios Commercials where they dig up your lawn and set your house on fire... Oops!
But in reality, Comcast is doing the right thing here. They made a mistake, and they are making it right! Good Job
I'm glad Concast takes this very seriously. Now if they would only take it even just seriously when they are about to terminate a customer account for 12 months, that would be progress.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83027-100x100.png\")
Would this kind of fire be considered a Com-flagration?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-133551-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2736-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-690585-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-887707-100x100.png\")
Doesn't surprise me. She'd best try another cableco - oh wait, she probably doesn't have a competing cable company to choose from.
Sorry, these kinds of monopolies really grate my goat.
@Andrew Norton:
@Andrew Norton: In this case, however, at least Comcast is doing the right thing by repairing the damage and providing accommodations while everything is repaired. They're not pretending like they didn't do something wrong like in past indiscretions
@Andrew Norton: Inside wiring is not the property of the cable company. Anyone, be it Comcast, an electrician, or even the homeowner himself can add or move outlets.
Comcast does not have the monopoly on inside wiring work at all.
@Andrew Norton:
Hmm, I wonder what grated goat tastes like? Is that with or without eyeballs?
@Andrew Norton: I should add, my opinion of cableguys, and similar subcontractors is very low. I've had so many bad dealings with those 'industry' it's beyond belief.