Bzz... bzz... bzz.... AT&T U-verse Voice customers got nothing but busy signals for much of today.

AT&T U-verse telephone service failed its customers this morning from coast to coast.

A major outage, starting at around 5:00am EDT left callers from Los Angeles to Connecticut with nothing but busy signals for at least four hours.

Customers could not reach an operator or 911 emergency services, and calls to AT&T’s customer service and repair lines were met with busy signals.

Some customers headed online to get chat support, but discovered queues stretching into three digits.  John from Tennessee writes Stop the Cap!:

I am number 473 in the chat queue at the moment, which is laughable.  My only other phone is an AT&T prepaid GoPhone and I’m not going to give AT&T 25 cents a minute to tell them their U-verse service has failed.  They’d better hand over some credit.

He was well ahead of Ccalana from Folsom, California who was #852!

Other websites have reported similar complaints from impacted customers.  Broadband Reports noted AT&T confirmed the company suffered a national U-Verse voice outage for much of the day.

Customer service agents have been less than helpful, not giving out much information about what’s behind the collapse of AT&T’s Voice Over IP phone service.

The only good news is that the worst of the outage appears to be over at this point, with customers noting returned dial tones and calling capability starting after noon.

AT&T warns customers outages can make 911 service from U-verse Voice unreliable.

This is the second major outage experienced by AT&T U-verse Voice this month.  The last one occurred May 16th from around 3-8am.  Few customers noticed.

Most phone and cable companies do not extend outage credits for consumers unless they are asked.  So when service is restored, be sure to ask AT&T for a credit on your next bill.

This AT&T customer was billed $12.95 in cramming charges. (Click image for more information)

AT&T and Verizon are among the top recipients of ill-gotten gains from so-called “cramming” incidents — customers who find unauthorized charges on their phone bill placed there by third party companies that maintain a cozy billing relationship with the two phone companies.

Boston-area resident Mike Cunningham paid $567 in phone charges billed “conveniently” to his Verizon Wireless phone bill.  Only he didn’t authorize them.

Cunningham recently sat down and reviewed nearly two years’ worth of dozen-page phone bills scrutinizing them for unauthorized charges.  Speaking to the Boston Globe, Cunningham didn’t initially notice the “enhanced voice mail’’ charges of $14.95 and $13.22 buried on pages five and six.  That’s not surprising, since many Verizon Wireless customers are now billed online and most customers don’t wade through multi-page online billing statements.

After Cunningham added several years of these monthly charges up, totaling $567, that got his attention.

Cunningham was billed by ILD Teleservices Inc., which said Cunningham’s grandson — then 10 years old — ordered its services while on a website that offers free video games. Cunningham said his grandson, who doesn’t have a cellphone, did not intentionally order voice mail — and knew nothing about it.

ILD generates an enormous number of complaints about unauthorized charges placed on consumer phone bills.  The company describes itself as a leading payment processor of online transactions between merchants and consumers, processing more than 120 million billing transactions per year totaling $500 million of third party charges placed on telephone bills.  Although the company claims to put its potential clients through a rigorous screening process, the avalanche of customer complaints, including the fact a 10-year old was able to be victimized by one of ILD’s clients, suggests otherwise.

Even worse, companies like AT&T and Verizon profit handsomely from fees paid by payment processors like ILD to gain the lucrative ability to charge customers’ phone bills for services, ordered or otherwise.  With a profit incentive to protect, consumers are getting the short end of the stick when calling Verizon or AT&T to complain.  More often than not they pass the buck (while keeping the change for themselves) back to the third party billing agency to try and secure refunds.

Only a staggering amount of potential earnings from such billing practices would seem enough to make risking the customer’s relationship with their phone company worthwhile.  After customers spend hours dealing with unruly and hostile customer service representatives working for such billing agencies, there is little chance that customer will be endeared to the phone company that put them through the nightmare in the first place.

Susan from Ambler, Pennsylvania is an excellent example:

“ILD Teleservices placed a charge on my Verizon phone bill for a service that was not requested, authorized or that would even work (ringtones for a land line!) on Feb 22, 2010. When I called Verizon to question the bill, they informed me the charge was not a Verizon charge but from a third party company,” she told Consumer Affairs.

David in Galt, California was billed by ILD on his AT&T phone bill for ordering a service over his home computer, an amazing feat considering he doesn’t have one.

“I received a charge of 14.95 on my AT&T phone bill from ILD Teleservices. They claimed that someone in the household went online and ordered the service. We did not have the capability to do that with no computer at the house,” he writes.

More than 3,000 complaints have been logged against ILD by Consumer Affairs, with customers highly annoyed that their phone companies refuse to stand by them when illegitimate charges show up on their phone bills. John from Wisconsin got no help from AT&T when identify theft allowed someone to add unwanted services to his phone bill under his wife’s name.

It turns out someone signed him up for TotalContactSolutions, a Florida-based company that charges $14.95 a month to alert up to 10 people with text or voice messages “during catastrophic events such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.”  Perhaps the service will come in handy to contact those 10 friends and family members when you discover the charges on your phone bill and pass out on the floor.

John reports his credit rating is being terrorized by a company that refuses to refund the unauthorized charges unless he can prove, with an e-mail from AT&T no less, that nobody could have signed up for the service from John’s home.  Unfortunately for John, AT&T’s surveillance of its customers doesn’t extend that far, and the company refused to forgive the charges, instead threatening him with collections.

Unfortunately, your tax dollars are hard at work paying for state utility commissions, the Federal Communications Commission, and consumer service agencies to assist consumers who are victimized twice by cramming charges — once by Verizon or AT&T for allowing them on their bills in the first place, and a second time trying to deal with a third party company to reverse them.

A Boston Globe review of more than 200 cramming-related complaints from consumers — filed with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable and the attorney general since 2007 — found that state workers reviewing complaints sometimes spent hours trying to resolve a single one.

The case of Soren Jensen, a retired engineer who lives in Duxbury, is typical. Jensen said he spotted four charges of $9.99 apiece for text messages on his wife and son’s cellphone bills starting in 2008. There was a common thread: Jensen’s wife and son said they had both taken IQ tests online, entering their cellphone numbers to receive the results. He suspected they mistakenly signed up for text messaging in the process.

After reviewing the fine print on his bill and doing some online sleuthing, he found Verizon Wireless had an agreement with Solow, a computer gaming website that contacts players using a text message service that charges $9.99 per message.

Jensen said he called Verizon Wireless to complain, and the company agreed to remove one of the $9.99 charges.

“I just don’t get why Verizon doesn’t want to protect us, as the customer,’’ Jensen said. “Verizon should not allow this kind of stuff. It raises a lot of questions.’’

The answers aren’t difficult to find when you follow the money.  Both AT&T and Verizon collect plenty from fees charged to cramming companies and billing agencies for the right to bill their services directly on your phone bill.  Neither company will disclose exactly how much they profit from such arrangements, but they are clear about who is responsible when mystery fees turn up on your phone bill:  you are.

Both companies told the Boston Globe they “encourage customers to scrutinize their bills to make sure they are not improperly charged for services.”

And they make that very easy by labeling mystery fees with such helpful billing descriptions as “enhanced calling service” or “enhanced voicemail.”  One of Stop the Cap!‘s readers was billed for services described as an “enhanced recovery fee” and another for “customer support and assistance.”

Verizon claims complaints about third-party charges are “infrequent” and says customers can contact the company and block all third-party charges from their bills, something we strongly recommend you consider doing before being victimized.

AT&T won’t go that far.  It told the Globe:

AT&T, which also allows third-party billing, advises customers to direct their complaints to the company assessing the fee. Names of third-party vendors are disclosed on AT&T bills, the company said. “AT&T’s third-party billing contracts require service providers to address cramming complaints appropriately, including issuing credits if customers have been crammed,’’ an AT&T spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

But AT&T is still in the business of scaring its customers.  TotalContactSolutions maintains a required AT&T customer disclaimer on their website, which includes several states where AT&T can disconnect your phone line over billing disputes:

You have the right to dispute the Employee Notification Services charges billed on your local telephone bill. You are not legally responsible for Employee Notification Services charges incurred by minors or vulnerable adults without your consent. Your local telephone service will not be disconnected because you fail to pay a charge by Employee Notification Services, except that nonpayment of certain regulated telecommunications charges may result in disconnection of service in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, SC, and TN.

And we know what phone company lobbied their way into obtaining the right to cut your service off if you don’t pay, don’t we?

In the end, Cunningham got refunds for the unauthorized fees on his Verizon Wireless bill, after the companies discovered a minor child was involved.

ILD claims to have sent Cunningham $1,000 in coupons as part of a settlement, something Cunningham claims is a lie.  Cunningham is better off without them.  The $1,000 in coupons ILD offered is suspiciously similar to an offer from another ILD client that promises that amount in grocery coupons you can print on your computer… if you sign-up for enhanced voicemail service for $12.95 a month.

Was this the $1,000 in "free coupons" offered to Mike Cunningham? If so, it comes with some very expensive strings attached.

Cunningham is so disgusted with Verizon Wireless for putting him through this ordeal, he wanted to cancel his service and move on.  But Verizon knows how to hold customers captive.  Instead of sending him a refund check for $567, they applied it as a credit that can only be redeemed by remaining a Verizon Wireless customer until the credit is exhausted.

“It’s like salt in the wound,’’ he told the Globe. “I can’t leave. I’m a captive audience.’’

Stop the Cap! notes the Federal Communications Commission is overwhelmed with cramming complaints that number well into the thousands every year.  Since telephone companies refuse to stand up for their customers, it is imperative that the FCC order phone companies to stop allowing all third-party billing unless and until a customer “opts-in” to such billing, in writing.  No third party “opt-in” requests should be permitted, and customers should not have to chase their phone companies to opt-out of a service that has a built-in profit incentive for funny business, fraud, and costly scams that cost customers enormous time and money to resolve.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS News Cramming Charges 2-23-08.flv[/flv]

The CBS Evening News ran this item about cramming charges and the problems they cause customers more than two years ago, interviewing a representative from Verizon Wireless.  Very little has changed as the money, and complaints, keep pouring in.  (3 minutes)

Mediacom is the nation's eighth largest cable company, serving 1.3 million customers in 22 states

Customers across the country are growing increasingly annoyed with Mediacom, the nation’s eighth largest cable operator that scored rock bottom in this year’s Consumer Reports cable survey.

The complaints keep on piling up: unfulfilled service calls, uninformed customer service agents in the Philippines, poor quality service, and in one case, a supervisor more concerned about how a customer obtained her direct number than actually resolving the customer’s problems.

The fallout from irritated customers now extends beyond horror stories from some of the company’s 1.3 million customers in 22 states — it’s now costing the company rejection of extended franchise renewal agreements in some communities, and plenty of bad press.

Boone County, Illinois

Boone County, Illinois

Last spring, Boone County began discussions about renewing a cable franchise Mediacom had with the county for some 20 years.  Public meetings to discuss the renewal brought throngs of customers annoyed with Mediacom’s poor performance.

The Rockford Register-Star took up the story:

Candlewick Lake resident Roger McGee Sr. has been experiencing difficulties with his cable company since he moved to the gated community two years ago.

McGee, a former Huntley resident, said he’s spent more time trying to get resolutions to his cable and Internet issues than he ever imagined was possible. “Every single step of the way the customer service was horrible and mismanaged,” he said Wednesday. “I talked to Mediacom more than I talked to my wife in those three months.”

Mediacom representatives characterized the complaints as mere aberrations and suggested isolated complaints could be resolved without impacting the company’s franchise renewal.  But additional public meetings held later that summer illustrated Mediacom had problems in the north-central Illinois region where it provided service.  The Register-Star reported:

George Chorvat has experienced countless issues with Mediacom Communications, and he’s looking for relief. The Poplar Grove resident isn’t alone.

Chorvat attended the county’s second cable hearing Tuesday at the Belvidere Township Building along with roughly 20 residents to speak out about service woes and to provide input on the county’s nonexclusive franchise renewal, which is in the negotiation phase.

“You took away half of our movie channels and said it was OK because we had On Demand, but we do not and we’re paying the same price,” Chorvat said.

His challenge of the offerings provided by Mediacom was one of several problems residents said they face.

Some residents detailed months of waiting for maintenance cable wires to be buried underground. Others told of weeks without phone service or waiting at home for technicians to arrive for scheduled appointments only to find the cable company had canceled them.

Late last month, Boone County granted the cable company a one-year extension of its cable franchise, citing customer complaints as the primary reason for the short-term extension.  In addition, the county will hold a series of public meetings at three, six, and nine month intervals over the coming year to check on customer service concerns and how Mediacom responds to them before considering a five year franchise extension.

The interim extension also keeps Mediacom from using telecom-friendly legislation to obtain a franchise from the Illinois state government, bypassing local officials.  Statewide franchising in Illinois was the brainchild of AT&T, which wants to expand U-verse without having to answer to local communities.  Mediacom has the ability to hop on board the same provisions to avoid local control if local governments refuse to extend a franchise agreement.

“We need to make sure we keep some county control here,” board member Karl Johnson told the newspaper in February. “No matter how big we think we are here, they’re a whole lot bigger when they come through downstate.”

Johnson heard several complaints from Mediacom customers about missed appointments, incomplete wire maintenance, and some who went weeks without Mediacom phone or broadband service.

Springfield, Missouri

Springfield, Missouri

Cable customers who experience problems expect answers when calling customer service, but Springfield resident Nancy Walker found herself empty-handed after speaking with a Mediacom representative thousands of miles away — in the Philippines.

“I am really upset,” Walker told the Springfield News-Leader in February. “I want a local number I can call, not the Philippines.”

She finally resorted to calling the office number of a friend who once worked for Mediacom before that friend passed away.  A supervisor was more concerned about how she obtained that number than helping her, Walker said.

Mediacom disconnected its local call center about three years ago, and company officials admitted they route calls to call centers, including one in the Philippines.  Larry Peterson, regional vice president of Mediacom, said the company dropped the ball on Ms. Walker, finding the customer service she received “unacceptable.”  Peterson handed Walker his business card and promised any issues would be resolved.

For customers who do not have Peterson’s personal office number, many just have to take their chances.

Springfield’s Cable TV Advisory Commission, which actually holds almost no real power over Mediacom, thought the company could do better.

Commission member Rita Silic urged the cable company to find a way to route dissatisfied customer calls back to a local Mediacom representative.

Dave Iseman, editorial page editor of the News-Leader, opined Mediacom needs “a full-fledged apologetic jingle. And it better be a long one, considering the waiting time that can be necessary to phone in a complaint.”

Burlington, Iowa

The fact Mediacom rated near the bottom in Consumer Reports‘ latest ranking of telecommunications companies — 24th among 27 Internet providers, 15th among 16 television service providers and dead last among 23 telephone providers — didn’t escape the attention of Burlington-based newspaper The Hawk Eye.  The newspaper noticed local complaints were continuing to pour in about service quality and trouble reaching customer service.

Columnist Don Henry even wrote about his own personal experiences with Mediacom in December:

Mediacom last month took away the religious programming my wife enjoys: I guess she shouldn’t complain.

They also poked out one of C-SPAN’s eyes on Congress. The Nancy Pelosi House of Horrors remains fit for family viewing, but not the Senate Shell Game. No explanation of why and I watched both — but I’m not complaining.

We were satisfied with “expanded basic” — but Mediacom decided to improve our viewing experience by removing four channels and making us rent some new box gadget to see them, plus a few we didn’t need.

Lest you complain, you get one box free … until they automatically raise your bill a year later. Conservatives think God trumps Harry Reid, so our box went into Sandy’s exercise room. She’s not complaining.

Henry’s problems only got worse from there, including e-mail disruptions and other service outages.  He did what most customers do when their service is on the fritz — he called the cable company.  That turned out to be quite an adventure:

“For e-mail problems, press 1; otherwise, stay on the line.”

I pressed 1.

“For e-mail problems, press 1; otherwise, stay on the line.”

Burlington, Iowa

I pressed 1.

“For e-mail problems, press 1; otherwise, stay on the line.”

After maybe 10 replays, I disobeyed. I stayed on the line … and waited … and waited … until my patience wore thin enough to drive to the Mediacom office on Division Street. I talked to a rep who seemed blissfully unaware of any e-mail problems. It’s been over a day and I’m far from alone, I said.

“Well, nobody’s told us.”

Could you ask about it?

“I can’t do that.”

Could you at least adjust my bill for the lost service?

“I don’t know of that ever being done.”

You used to, when I could get someone by phone.

“Then you’ll have to call.”

Henry’s column struck a nerve among local residents, who flooded the newspaper with comments about their own horror stories, ranging from pesky squirrels chewing through fiber optic cables to tsunamis of spam after the company “improved” its e-mail service.

Phyllis Peters, communications director for Mediacom, admitted the company could improve its customer service, but decided to devote most of her attention to taking issue with… Consumer Reports‘ survey.  Peters wants customers to know Mediacom isn’t dead last in the country because the magazine didn’t ask customers about every cable provider in the United States.  She’s certain there are worse examples out there:

Peters said one reason the survey might rate Mediacom so poorly is because of the company’s ambition. Mediacom is the nation’s eighth largest cable company, and focuses on providing cable coverage to non-metropolitan areas. Expanding service over a large area means more fiberoptic cable and servers that must be monitored.

Peters said the top-ranking cable company Wow, which had top scores on almost every attribute in the ratings, serves a much smaller, consolidated area than Mediacom. Wow is the 12th largest cable provider in the country, and services parts of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. Consumer Reports was enthusiastic about the company, but acknowledged its small size.

“We would like to be higher in the rankings. We’ve put a lot of effort into customer service, and we did add a lot of calling staff,” Peters said. “Those things have moved forward in a significant way, and it takes a while for perception to change.”

It may not always be easy to get a Mediacom representative on the phone, but the company offers the fastest Internet service in Burlington, she said. The company offers a standard download speed of 12 megabytes per second, and that service can be upgraded to 20 megabytes per second for a higher price.

Competition for Burlington residents’ broadband needs come mostly from Qwest, which offers most customers 1.2 Mbps DSL service, although the company can provide up to 7 Mbps in selected neighborhoods.

Max Phillips, president of the western Iowa division of Qwest, told The Hawk Eye he doesn’t know if the company will be able to provide higher speeds to Burlington in the near future.

“We have a long-term plan to bring higher speeds, but our business is constrained by the government model,” he said, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Carthage, Illinois

Carthage, Illinois

Mediacom has been out of luck securing a franchise renewal in Carthage because of ongoing customer complaints about the quality of service being provided to Hancock County residents.

Carthage has been without a Mediacom franchise agreement since the old one expired last June.

A proposed renewal was shot down by the city after a vote failed to approve it, citing reception complaints.  Mediacom has been asking the city for a franchise renewal ever since, but the city has resorted to four-month extensions, waiting to see what service improvements were forthcoming in the interim.

Mediacom installed new hardware in the community, which it felt would improve reception, and city officials were hopeful the noted drop in complaints reaching them was an indication of that.

But in February, complaints began arriving at the city’s doorstep once again.

Carthage Mayor Jim Nightingale said he heard two complaints right after the city council offered the latest extension.

Now he’s withdrawn the offer.

Mediacom can always appeal to the state of Illinois to seek a new franchise under statewide franchise laws, but discussions with city officials are continuing for now.

Prior Lake, Minnesota

Prior Lake, Minnesota

Communities looking for competitive alternatives to Mediacom usually find phone companies who refuse to offer video service in Mediacom service areas, because the cable company typically chooses smaller communities where such “telco-TV” projects don’t meet the minimum Return On Investment requirements necessary to build them.  Some communities served by independent phone companies or are lucky enough to find a willing fiber-to-the-home provider are in better shape, unless the cable company files suit to stop such projects from moving forward.

The community of Prior Lake, twenty miles outside of Minneapolis, and its 16,000 residents are a case in point.

Last fall, Mediacom filed suit against Integra Telecom, a Portland, Oregon-based provider of competitive voice, broadband, and television service that won a franchise agreement to provide “telco-TV” in Prior Lake and nearby communities within its existing service area.

The suit claims city officials discriminated against Mediacom by not compelling Integra to meet the same terms and conditions Mediacom agreed to in a 1999 franchise agreement. Specifically, Mediacom wants Integra held to the same requirement it agreed to in defining its service area.  Because Integra is not planning on matching Mediacom’s service area house by house, Mediacom claims they are in violation of Minnesota law.

That suit is awaiting a hearing in the state Court of Appeals expected to begin this month.

The dispute between Mediacom and the city has led one state senator to write legislation clarifying the existing cable franchise laws in Minnesota.

Senator Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis), has introduced Senate File 2535.  The bill would allow telephone companies to provide competitive service within their natural service areas, instead of being required to match incumbent cable operator coverage areas.  For example, a cable company might serve a broader area where multiple phone companies provide service.  Under current state law, competing phone companies could be required to wire every area where the incumbent cable company provides service, even inside other phone company’s service areas.  Senate File 2535 recognizes the current telephone company service area boundaries as acceptable enough to proceed with a video franchise agreement.

Integra's service area in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, which is not identical to Mediacom's service area, is one point of contention between Mediacom and Prior Lake officials

Prior Lake City Manager Frank Boyles and Senator Claire Robling (R-Jordan), both testified in favor of the bill at a recent hearing held by the state Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications. The bill was approved unanimously and now moves to the State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee, of which Robling is a member.

The League of Minnesota Cities is also calling on its members and the public to support SF2535 which could speed competition across Minnesota.

Text of Senate Bill 2535:

A bill for an act relating to cable communications; clarifying requirements for the granting of additional cable franchises; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 238.08, subdivision 1.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 238.08, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1. Requirement; conditions.

(a) A municipality shall require a franchise or extension permit of any cable communications system providing service within the municipality.

(b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply when the area in which the additional franchise is being sought is not actually being served by any existing cable communications system holding a franchise for the area. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a municipality from imposing additional terms and conditions on any additional franchises.

(c) An area for an additional cable franchise is not more favorable or less burdensome if the franchisee is a telephone company, as defined in section 237.01, subdivision 7, and the area of the franchise is no less than the area within the municipality in which the telephone company offers local exchange telephone service. This paragraph is in addition to and not a limit to the authority of a municipality to grant an additional franchise for cable service.

The elusive Dell 10v Netbook promised to new Comcast customers back in August is MIA for hundreds who took advantage of the promotion

Five months after Comcast ran a promotion for new customers including a free Dell 10v netbook, many customers across the country are still waiting to receive the computer.

Back in August, Comcast matched a Verizon FiOS promotion promising a netbook to new customers signing a two-year service contract for a $99 monthly “triple play” package of telephone, broadband, and cable programming.

Visitors to Comcast’s website were offered:

HD Starter Triple Play

NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get a free Dell 10v Netbook with the HD Starter Triple Play for only $99 a month for 12 months and a 2-year minimum term agreement. Plus, you’ll continue the savings the following year with a price of just $10 more per month.

• Free HD – no HD access fees or equipment fees.
• Over 80 digital cable channels.
• Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
• Internet downloads up to 15 Mbps, uploads up to 3 Mbps with PowerBoost®.
• Unlimited local and long-distance nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
• Voice Mail and 12 popular calling features including Caller ID, Call Waiting and more.

The campaign apparently shared something else in common with Verizon’s promotions — customers left high and dry wondering when the promised bonus will arrive.

Customer attempts to contact Comcast have met with a wall of excuses and broken promises, and often still no netbook.  Other customers were told they failed to “qualify” for the promotion for not precisely following the terms and conditions that were never explained to them.

Comcast representatives have told customers they lost out because:

• They failed to return a copy of the signed contract committing to two years’ of service, despite insistence from customers who claimed they had;
• Comcast had two promotions running at the same time that were nearly identical, though one offer did not include a netbook. Customers were told they were signed up for the promotion that didn’t include the netbook.
• Customers had to make three or four consistent payments for service, before the due date, or they would forfeit participation in the netbook promotion.
• The customer waited too long to complain about the missing netbook.
• The customer was now a TV customer, and therefore didn’t qualify for the promotion.
• Tri-Star/Checkmyrebate.com, the third party fulfillment center handling the promotion didn’t receive/rejected the customer’s promotion request.
• They lost the paperwork.

Although some customers began receiving the promised promotion more than 120 days after signing up for Comcast, hundreds more are still waiting, and complaining.  A few managed to obtain service credits up to $299 (the retail cost of the Dell 10v) and told to “go buy your own.”   One Seattle television station intervened to help a Kenmore resident finally secure one in January, despite hopes it would have arrived before Christmas for re-gifting.

Escalating the matter to executive customer service is usually the best way to cut through Comcast’s red tape and secure the promotion customers are entitled to receive.

Darren, a Comcast customer who waited months for the cable company to make good on their offer gave some advice:

I started posting on Facebook and Twitter and immediately received a twitter from @ComcastMelissa and @ComcastBonnie. They told me to email: [email protected] and provide my account information so they can get me my netbook. I received an email from Sherri Carson, ([email protected]) at the corporate office – national customer service. On January 7th, 2010 she said “This is going to take about 2 weeks at the most. Sorry, I know you should have received some follow up, but I’m on it.”

The kicker: I emailed her yesterday to say hey, two weeks is almost up and I haven’t heard anything. Here is her response: “You should be receiving your netbook no later than 2/19 at the latest. I will get you a tracking number as soon as I get one. You can check this site in about two weeks.

Just don’t get your hopes too high for a Dell netbook.  Many finally receiving their promotional gift report an Asus Eee PC arrived instead.  Comcast put that in the fine print as well  — it reserved the right to make substitutions.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Comcast called out in Triple Play promotion 1-7-10.mp4[/flv]

KING-TV Seattle helped this Kenmore, Washington viewer finally get her promised netbook after signing up for service in August, 2009.  A Comcast executive personally pleaded for her to stay with Comcast, despite the promotion problem, in this report.  (2 minutes)

A Kennewick, Washington couple became so exasperated with Charter Cable’s unwillingness to fix a cable hanging off their roof and into their yard they finally called a local television station for help.

Over a seven month period, the Dunbar family contended with a series of broken promises from Charter to fix the problem, but the company never did.  Ralph Dunbar, 82, finally climbed on the roof himself to get the cable out of the yard where someone might trip over it.

“I don’t want it on the ground where a child or dog could get hurt or my meter reader. It doesn’t belong on the ground or it would have been there in the first place so I want it fixed,” Laura Dunbar told KEPR Action News.

The Dunbar family endured this Charter Cable line hanging off their roof for seven months

Within hours of the station calling Charter, the problem was finally fixed.

Laura Dunbar remains upset it took a local television station to get Charter moving on their behalf, and KEPR reporter Chelsea Kopta called Charter looking for an explanation for the delay, to no avail.

“I called Charter headquarters in Phoenix with my questions,” Kopta reports. “By the close of business no one said they had time to answer my questions over the phone.”

John Miller, Director of Communications for Charter, later issued this statement:

We apologize for any concern this may have caused our customers or their neighbor.  We are pleased the issue has been successfully resolved for the Dunbars, who are long time Charter customers.

The story apparently drew enough attention the first day it was reported, the station’s follow-up report led the newscast the following evening.

Charter Cable recently emerged from bankruptcy reorganization.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KEPR Pasco Dunbar Family Endures Charter Cable’s Bad Service 1-4 and 1-5-10.flv[/flv]

KEPR-TV in Pasco, Washington ran two reports about the Dunbar’s ongoing problems with Charter Cable. (January 4 & 5, 2010 – 3 minutes)