[sf-lug] Why I'm not a huge Comcast fan (2015 incident)

[Bobbie Sellers]

Hi Rick.
     Just want to say that I appreciate your sharing.

Bobbie Sellers - who already had a very low opinion of Comcast.

On 10/12/19 2:33 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Akkana Peck (akkana at shallowsky.com):
>
>> That is an amazing story. I hope you don't mind my linking to it
>> from my own (less impressive) Comcast saga:
>> http://shallowsky.com/comcast-odyssey.html
> You're of course welcome to.
>
> Since re-posting that 2015 story, I found yet more bobbles in the text,
> which I've now gone back and fixed in the Web archive file (the one you
> link to).  That includes little things like correctly giving the superb
> antenna installer firm's name as AV Solution Pros (BTW, Web site is
> https://avsolutionpros.com/ , and one actually significant screw-up
> where I mistakenly referred to Cberyl's new Comcast Business Internet
> service as 'aDSL' -- whereas of course it's Internet service over cable
> TV cabling, not aDSL, which arrives over telco landlines.
>
>
> At the time I wrote that, as I mentioned, I had been _really_ close to
> suing Comcast and its dreadfully bad subcontractor O.C. Communications.
> To boil down the point of my long saga, what particularly incensed me
> was:
>
> 1.  The O.C. Communications guy (Timothy Almacer) deliberately blew off
> his customer's (Cheryl's) attempts to supervise his work and be in the
> loop.  This is an instant red flag; it means the guy went rogue from the
> start.  Unfortunately, beause I'd wanted to have nothing to do with
> Comcast and required Cheryl to manage _her_ contract with them, I didn't
> learn about O.C. Communications going off the reservation until after I
> kicked them off my property.
>
> 2.  Their guy _gratuitously_ destroyed absolutely all wiring
> infrastructure coming into my house, except for PG&E electrical.
>
> 3.  This included, in particular, sabotaging the TV antenna feed
> we'd paid $400 to install four years earlier in order to fire Comcast's
> lousy and dishonestly managed cable TV service.  Plus the Comcast
> contractor stole part of the underfloor cable network we were using
> for the antenna signal.
>
> 4.  Confronted about his sabotage, the installer guy lied, ludicrously
> disclaimed responsibility for the breakage, and tried to distract my
> attention away from his criminal action at my roofline by asking me to
> go look at the telephone pole.
>
> 5.  Moreover, his alleged boss Josh F., upon arrival to supposedly
> handle the situation as an escalation, did the same thing.  And also
> refused to give his full name.
>
>
> At the end of the first day, I made clear to Comcast upper management
> that they and their contractor were liable and that I was likely to
> chew their asses in court.  Comcast offered to send Comcast _corporate_
> techs (rather than O.C. Communications again) the next day to do repair.
> I let them schedule a 6pm visit, but said frankly I would rather that
> the antenna guys fix their sabotage, and that I expected Comcast to
> promptly pick up the bill for any required work.  The Comcast manager
> agreed, which helped end the matter without litigation.
>
>> I had an earlier, more minor, run-in with Comcast when I lived in
>> San Jose. I had signed up for a basic cable package, not the fancier
>> digital option (which supposedly wasn't even an option in that part
>> of San Jose at that time anyway). The morning the cable installer
>> came, he puttered around the living room for a little while and then
>> asked, "Where's the telephone line I should plug into?"
>>
>> Me: "Um ... telephone line? Excuse me? Nobody said anything about that."
>>
>> It turned out that despite what I had been told on the phone, he
>> was auto-upgrading us to a fancier package, which apparently
>> required a phone connection in order to phone home periodically
>> about what was being watched.
>
> Eh, that would be an 'absolutely hell no' from me.
>
> These days, if a utility contractor is going to visit for work, I
> require being briefed in advance about what is to be done where,
> in writing.  Then, when the tech arrives, we review that, to make
> sure there's no confusion.  And then I watch them like a hawk and make
> sure they do exactly what was in the work order, all of it, and nothing
> not part of the work order.  If they show signs of going rogue (through
> substantive actions that are outside the pian) , I plan to make a record
> of what happened, tell them the job is now cancelled, order them
> immediately off my property, and notify management that they screwed it
> up, and would they like to make a new appointment to send someone who
> can follow a work order?
>
> I remember one time I had a contractor visit to unclog the drains, and I
> carelessly left him alone for a while.  Suddenly, I noticed that the
> house Internet link was down.  I came out to the garage, and found
> that he'd made an executive decision to unplug AC power to my aDSL
> bridge unit and _my server_, in order to plug something of his in.
> Moreover, he saw nothing wrong with just yanking power to a mini-colo of
> sensitive infrastructure electronics, and merely looked sullen when I
> read him the riot act.
>
> Lesson learned.  No more unsupervised utility workers.  Instead, watch
> them like a hawk, and be prepared to say 'Stop.  Hands off, and tell me
> what you were about to do there and why.'
>
>
>
>
>> That was maybe ten years ago and I've been fine with DSL internet
>> and no TV. Comcast obviously thinks that people are so desperate for
>> TV that they'll unquestioningly accept whatever plan Comcast decides
>> to foist on them, regardless of whether it's what they ordered.
> See the URLs in the first part of my epic anecdote, giving detail about
> Deirdre's 2010 decision to cut the cable and get our TV from
> over-the-air plus Internet sources.  She arrives at some interesting
> conclusions and figures.  One of the takeaways is that every Comcast
> cable TV customer is subsidising the expensive ESPN sports coverage,
> whether they are ordering the sports channels or not.  As of 2010, that
> was the biggest single reason for the price-jacking that lead us to give
> them the heave-ho completely.  (At the time, we'd noticed they had
> surreptitiously upsold Deirdre onto a higher-priced plan than the one
> she'd agreed to, and then were dishonest about having done so, and that
> was the last straw.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>