Last week, I wrote here about a Philadelphia-area couple, John and Carol Lehman, who'd been overcharged $600 by Comcast for a returned cable box, but were told they had to sign a strict nondisclosure agreement simply to get their money back. For a company that had just announced big plans to address customer dissatisfaction, evidence that Comcast might be trying to hide evidence seemed a bad sign.
I'm late with an important update: a response to my question about whether demanding customers' silence was now an ordinary practice or policy. Comcast says that particular use of an NDA was a mistake. A company official said the form a service rep tried to require the Lehmans to sign, which you can read here, was intended for use in settling some of the more complicated cases that can arise in the cable business, such as claims of property damage.
In a formal statement emailed to me earlier this week, Comcast spokesman Jeff Alexander cited the company's plans "to significantly improve the customer experience [that] will go a long way to prevent these experiences from happening again." Then he said: "With regard to release forms and NDAs, we do not have a national policy regarding their use with customers and we don't think that confidentially agreements should be used in these situations. We are using this example to create a clear policy that will clarify this with our employees."
I'm guessing we haven't heard the last of this one. Just two days after Comcast's highly publicized come-to-contrition moment on how it plans to fix its customer-service failings, Philly's ABC 6 reports that Comcast demanded silence from a customer in return for a $600 refund - if true, horrible news for consumers and an embarrassment for the company. You can't totally hide your failings, but some companies go a long way toward trying to bury the evidence. Is Comcast really trying to join that club?
Consumerist's report, "Comcast Says Customer Must Sign Non-Disclosure Agreement To Get $600 Refund," builds on reporting by ABC 6's Action News Troubleshooters about three couples overcharged by the cable and broadband giant. If you take the station's report at face value, I may not get far if I call the couple to ask what happened. They played a voicemail for Channel 6 saying they would be issued the $600 refund "pending that you had signed a nondisclosure agreement." (In an earlier version of this post, I mistakenly reported that ABC 6 hadn't mentioned a written agreement.")
So far, Comcast hasn't said whether this reflects corporate policy or is evidence of another rogue employee. I don’t actually know how common or uncommon this practice is, because – guess what – these things undoubtedly work. People get refunds, or have them dangled, and the public never hears about a company’s misdeed or, ironically, its willingness to actually make amends.
If there were any lingering doubts that the Federal Communications Commission's staff and leadership wanted to kill Comcast Corp.'s $45 billion takeover of its second-largest not-quite-rival, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler set them to rest this morning - within minutes of Comcast's announcement that its deal with Time Warner and a related transaction with Charter Communications "have been terminated."
Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s decision to end Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable is in the best interests of consumers. The proposed transaction would have created a company with the most broadband and the video subscribers in the nation alongside the ownership of significant programming interests.
Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including to the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.
It's long been a mystery to anyone who recognizes the power of computer algorithms and online data forms: Why can't U.S. taxpayers simply calculate their taxes online and file directly with the IRS for free? Taxpayers in other countries do so. Presidents of both parties have backed the concept.
The answer, according to a 2013 report by Pro Publica and NPR, mostly boils down to one factor: lobbying. And in a report as relevant today as it was two years ago, the nonprofit investigative-journalism organizations largely blame Intuit, maker of the popular (and sometimes problematic) TurboTax tax-prep software, along with anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and a dose of anti-government ideology:
Intuit has spent about $11.5 million on federal lobbying in the past five years — more than Apple or Amazon. Although the lobbying spans a range of issues, Intuit's disclosures pointedly note that the company "opposes IRS government tax preparation."
Google will face antitrust charges in the European Union even though it famously dodged them in the United States, sources have told several U.S. publications.
The good news is that I searched for this on Google via a Google Chrome browser, and I still found it - albeit below a suggested hit for "Google anti gravity." The bad news is that the European Union says Google - which avoided charges here despite a 2012 recommendation by the Federal Trade Commission's staff - has for years been manipulating search results "to favor the company’s own online services over others," the New York Times says.
The Times says:
Darn, I knew I couldn't trust those pesky scientists. (Or why it's sometimes hard to tell the pranks from the fringier news releases.)
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a "preliminary outline" of proposals shortly after midnight aimed at addressing one of the persistent problems of the credit market: "payday loans" with triple-digit interest rates that often become debt traps for borrowers. This is an eary public step in a long process that will test the young agency's ability to regulate an industry that sells a dangerous product to consumers while claiming that borrowers know exactly what they're getting into - as at least some borrowers undoubtedly do.
Although storefront payday lenders do not now operate in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, consumers everywhere are exposed to the risks via Internet-based lending.
Even before the formal release, advocates at organizations such as National Consumer Law Center and the Pew Charitable Trusts warned that the CFPB's alternative approaches could expose borrowers to risky loopholes.
This isn't the biggest or worst assault on privacy ever. But if you're interested in what happens to all that data you give up online and off, you should read Bloomberg's latest piece on the RadioShack bankruptcy proceeding. If nothing else, it's a window onto privacy battles to come.
Before it failed, RadioShack essentially promised not to sell its customers' data - names, email and actual addresses, shopping history, and the like. It even boasted of its promise. Now? An offer for the chain's assets suggests your data is just something else to cash in on as it liquidates. Bloomberg says two states and AT&T have already raised objections - though, in AT&T's case, only because it says some of the data belongs to it, not the Shack:
RadioShack's customers—even those whose most recent purchase came years ago—could also find themselves sold off in the deal. The company included personal data in its bankruptcy auction as its own asset class. A website maintained by Hilco Streambank, which is serving as an intermediary for RadioShack, says that more than 13 million e-mail addresses and 65 million customer names and physical address files are for sale. Hilco Streambank is careful to note that the bankruptcy court might not approve the deals, and there have already been two legal filings in attempts to block the sale of customer data.