Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/wr_nm/media_comcast_dc_1" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 60626/wr_nm/media_comcast_dc_1</a> "The Comcast technician was at customer Brian Finkelstein's home when he fell asleep after spending an hour on the phone waiting for his own company's customer service, the Comcast subscriber said." "Comcast said it has fired the employee and apologized to Finkelstein, of Washington, D.C., for the 'unsatisfactory customer experience.'" Does anyone else think firing this guy is harsh? I mean he didn't fall asleep because he was slackin' on the job, he fell asleep because he had to call the central office and they kept him on hold for a freaking hour! So now this customer puts it up all over the web and the company fires the guy. Nice...sounds like they're embarrassed and tryin' to make it all out to be *his* fault. Way to "show Comcast", Finkelstein. Here's the video of the guy with the customer's comments: <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/comcast-tech-falls-asleep-on-guys-couch-182440.php" target="_blank">http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hom e-entertainment/comcast-tech-falls-asleep-on-guys-couch-182440.php</a>
Originally Posted By smeeeko ^sounds like they fired the wrong guy.. Comcast needs to fire itself or perhaps the inbound call center needs to be put on notice... answer the phones!
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy That's what I say...what do they define as "unsatisfactory customer experience"? The fact that poor Mr. Finklestein was "driven" to record the Comcast man and broadcast it worldwide because the idiotic inbound office wasn't doing its job any quicker? Ya know, that Comcast guy knows where this guy lives...I sure wouldn't have put the vid up online...especially now that he's been fired!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad This is why I have Directv. Some may know, and few may care that we only moved into our current home last November. I never even considered cable TV from the get go and here is why. 5 years ago, when we moved into our last home, we called 6 months in advance to the Cable Company requesting cable, knowing that the lead time is harsh. We were told, "No problem, just call us when you get in." We did. We waited two months, being told once a week that it would be available to us "next week, we promise" only to be disappointed week in and week out. Finally after 8 weeks, I called Directv, they sent out a third party installer THE NEXT DAY, and by the next evening we had 151 channels!!! So, SKA-ROO cable tv. I don't care what advantages there may or may not be over satellite, I will NEVER partake for the rest of my days. Now get this, when we moved, I called Directv, they transferred our service a week before we actually moved in and sent someone to install a new dish and stuff for FREE!!! Moving the service cast me a big fat goose egg. Ok ok ok let me settle down before I stroke out.
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden I'd drop Comcast in a second. The only problem is that by owning the Sixers and Flyers, and broadcasting the Phillies, they don't make their games available on satellite and the feeds from the opposing markets get blacked out.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I am shocked that they can get away with that Fe Maiden, but then on the other hand I couldn't do without NFL Sunday Ticket which gives me every single NFL game played. So I guess they CAN do that. But now if the Sixers, Flyers, or Phillies are on say ESPN, or ABC for instance, why would that not come in via Satellite? I can't understand how Comcast could control that. Are you an Eagles fan too?
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden ^^^Season ticket holder to the Eagles. I'm not sure of all the rules or why, but I believe if the game is on ABC it doesn't matter cable or satellite because it's "over the air" anyway. They will appear on ESPN once in a while which Comcast allows, but I think this has to do with ESPN's league television contract which gives them rights to certain games. These are few and far between. Aside from those situations, since Comcast owns the teams and their games are seen on Comcast Sportsnet, and Comcast is a cable company their games are only available on cable. And why not? Makes sense if your main competitor is a satellite comapany. My in-laws have direct-tv, which means they can't get 80% of the local team's games, but they do get MSG, NESN, or other regional sports stations. But if for instance, the Flyers are playing the Rangers and it's not a national game it means that the game would appear on Comcast Sportsnet in the Philly market and MSG in the NY market. But because of local market rights MSG is blacked out on Direct TV until the game is over. Thus the only way to see your team is on cable. I have seriously considered a change several times. Most recently when hockey was dormant. But I do enjoy the local coverage of all the teams including the Eagles. Comcast's coverage of the Eagles is tremendous. You'd think they owned them as well.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I understand fully and it makes perfect sense. I am a Falcon's season ticket holder. I would trade fire and water for the rest of my life to keep my Michael Vick tickets...ahem I mean my Falcons tickets.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Jeez, all this sports talk is puttin' *me* to sleep... <---moves a few kids off the DVC_couch ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Originally Posted By deadmentellnotales I have comcast right now but am thinking of just canceling them outright and living without anything but broadband. everything I would want to watch comes out on dvd or is available online anyways and at my convenience
