Annoyed Comcast customer sues over 'always-on' assurance

Should Comcast be required to live up to its claims on its Web site and in press releases? One annoyed customer in Pennsylvania thinks so.

Excerpt from a Comcast press release, emphasis added.

After Adam Schwartz's Internet connection was down or interrupted for almost two weeks in April 2005, he filed a lawsuit trying to hold the broadband provider to its statements talking about an "always-on" network connection. A federal court ruled in his case last Friday.

The "always-on" line is taken directly from Comcast's own literature. A press release boasts that Comcast's customers have "high-speed, always-on Internet connections."

Schwartz filed a state class action suit against Comcast in Pennsylvania, alleging breach of contract and a violation of the state's consumer protection law. Comcast managed to get the case transferred to federal court and asked a judge to enforce the arbitration clause buried in Comcast's standard subscriber agreement.

Schwartz won, at least preliminarily, when a district judge ruled that there was no valid arbitration agreement. But Comcast appealed, and Schwartz had less luck before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It ruled last Friday:

The Subscriber Agreement is activated when Internet service is installed, because it states: "The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the installation of your Service...." Schwartz's contention, that the only agreement he was aware of was the "always on" promise, is nonsensical. For example, this "agreement" contains no payment terms, but Schwartz made regular monthly payments to Comcast. Even resolving all doubts and inferences in Schwartz's favor, it is impossible to infer that a reasonable adult in Schwartz's position would believe that his contract with Comcast consisted entirely of a single promise that the service would be "always on." Comcast offered Internet service under the terms of its Subscriber Agreement, and Schwartz accepted the service, so the terms of the contract are provided by the Subscriber Agreement.

Comcast had claimed that a routine work order that Schwartz signed when disconnecting his cable TV service (but keeping his cable modem) was crucial. The form said: "If other non-installation work was provided, I agree to continue to be bound by the current Comcast Subscriber Agreement." Printed somewhere on the form was the notation "O/L PRO SERV," which apparently referred to Comcast's Internet service.

The 3rd Circuit said that was sufficiently clear ("the Work Order put Schwartz on notice that he was bound by the Subscriber Agreement") and sent the case back to a trial court for further proceedings.

[Vonmaxx]

Why does it go off around 6:00PM?

Most of the time service fails is around 6:00PM. Strange, it does go
off other times, But not very often.
Hope the new 40 miles range WIFI comes soon, I will dump
comcast.
We had no problems with Adelphia.

[gunntherd]

Weird.........

That is true! Everyday around 5-6PM my connection goes off and I usually have to re-boot everything, including the modem to get going again. Never use to have a problem till about 7-8 months ago. It was so bad a few months back I thought it was my network card and bought a new one, but it still does it. I would gladly switch if I could!!!

[midwestern]

Elementary, Watson.

We noticed service outage always happens after we see a comcast van in the neighborhood.

That's how it seems to work: during the day, untrained, incompetent comcastic morons show up to fix something and break something then they leave and you stay with your new outage.

[baldguy61]

Comast UN-ethics

If you disconnect from Comcast, be prepared for a billing for "unreturned cable equipment", mainly the cable modem that you probably bought from someone else and never rented from Comcast. When you return any equipment to Comcast, insist on a signed receipt. You'll need it later to prove that you really did return it. Billing for unreturned equipment is a signature Comcast scam.

[mf.cummings]

Un-ethical company

Comcast spends millions on advertising to create the illusion that the service they offer is worth the confiscatory prices they charge. I have had nothing but non-stop problems with this company. They continually charge me for services never ordered, over charge for services rendered and the customer dis-service department has no fear of losing your business. They simply do not care.

It seems the business model here is to garner a government chartered monopoly in a given area, charge as much as possible and deliver sub-standard service. I can't prove it, only assert my opinion but I believe the mistaken billing is intentional, based on the consistency and the psychological principle of wearing down the consumer.

This company loses an opportunity every day, to gain customer loyalty and trust. It seems a shame that any company would willingly choose to do business this way.