The ad reads:

Did you know that there are people in this country who want prayer out of schools, "Under God" out of the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" to be taken off our money?

But did you know that 86% of Americans say they believe in God? Now, since we all know that 86 out of every 100 of us are Christians who believe in God, we at Kieffe & Sons Ford wonder why we don't just tell the other 14% to sit down and shut up. I guess maybe I just offended 14% of the people who are listening to this message. Well, if that is the case, then I say that's tough, this is America folks, it's called free speech. And none of us at Kieffe & Sons Ford are afraid to speak up. Kieffe & Sons Ford on Sierra Highway in Mojave and Rosamond: if we don't see you today, by the grace of God, we'll be here tomorrow.

The ad has been running on radio stations in southern California since at least February, according to one blogger. She wrote to Ford headquarters, but received a reply that because the dealerships are independently owned and operated, she should get in touch with the management at the dealership.

Here's the audio of (most of) the ad:

The Underground Unbeliever [via BoingBoing]
(Photo: Amy Watts)
(Audio: Karen Peralta)

Kapil's brand new Blackberry arrived with a battery that won't charge. He wants T-Mobile to exchange it, but he says T-Mobile wants to replace it with a refurbished Blackberry instead of a new model. Kapil is fighting back, but even at the executive support level all he's found are rude, uncooperative T-Mobile employees who keep saying there's a process, and that someone will call him back—which never happens. Kapil refused to hang up on the fourth day and demanded to know what happens next after nobody calls back, which seemed to confuse and anger the T-Mobile rep he was speaking with. And for those of you who can't listen in, we've transcribed some of the juiciest parts.

powered by ODEO

After a few minutes, the rep grows audibly annoyed with Kapil and tries to get him off the phone:

Your other option is to call customer care.

The reason I'm calling your executive office is because customer service has failed me and they are not helping me, and now you're telling me that my only recourse is to continue leaving messages but no one is calling me back. I have called every day—

[cutting in] Sir, sir, we took a message this morning. He has 24 hours to give you a call back.

I understand there was a message left this morning—

[talking over him] Okay, so— but—

—but there was also a message left on Monday, and Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week and no one has called me back.

Uh, uh, from the notations in the account I don't—

So you're telling me the notes are more accurate than me? Because on this conversation there's only one person that was part of that initial conversation and... it's not you. I'm telling you that I've called all this week—

[cutting in] I'm telling you nobody from my team, nobody from my team, uh, went into your account.

What if they forgot to leave a note to that effect? Is that my problem?

It doesn't matter, that's not how our system works sir. Even if they were in the account and, and, and didn't leave a note, it still shows there in the account.

So what if I—

[cutting in] At, at this point sir, I'm not going to argue with you. I can give you a phone number. If you need immediate assistance you have customer service to call. Okay?

I have tried—

[overlapping] Do you have any other questions or concerns for me?

I have tried customer service and they have refused to help me, so I called your executive office—

[cutting him off] Well sir, this is your option at this point, sir.

May I speak to a supervisor in your department?

No sir, you're not calling customer service, you're calling our executive offices.

This goes on and on like a Beckett play for a while. Eventually Kapil tries a different tactic, and discovers that just because he's been led to believe he's speaking to executive customer service, he may have actually been rerouted to regular customer service on his previous calls:

You're evading my question here. I understand your process, that someone will call me back in 24 hours. I'm asking, if that does not happen, what's happens next?

Somebody will call you back within 24 hours sir.

(Laughing) Are you a South Park fan at all? The TV show? [silence] Ever seen that TV show?

(Pause) ...No.

There's an episode of South Park where... imagine you're a character called the Underpants Gnome. And these Underpants Gnomes are stealing everyone's underpants, and when asked why they're doing that they put up a sign that says Step #1, collect underpants, Step #2, a bunch of question marks, and Step #3, profit. When you ask them what step #2 is, nobody knows. You're kind of doing that to me, I'm asking you if this doesn't happen, if your process doesn't work the way that it's supposed to, which it hasn't for me all week, what is the next step in the process. Like, how do I get past this?

Okay, again I'm telling you, you may have called the corporate office, but more than likely, it looks like from what I can see that you may have gotten transferred back to customer service, okay? As far as our team receiving the call, the first call that was received by our team this week was this morning, okay? So, from that point we have 24 hours to call you back.

But I have somebody on the phone. You're in the same department.

I'm trying to explain our process sir. Do you understand it or do I have to explain it again?

Twelve minutes in, we find out that the mysterious Pancho—he's the Godot-like character who's supposed to call Kapil back—isn't even someone Kapil has spoken to before, although Jason doesn't seem to understand or believe that. And at about the 13:30 mark, Jason finally gets upset enough that he reveals that he does have a record that Kapil has called several times before—something he has kept denying knowledge of throughout the call.

It's really a masterclass in how to pretend to offer customer service while stonewalling a customer. We like to imagine there are posters up around the T-Mobile offices that display our favorite line from Jason: "It's not a refusal, sir, it's how our process works."

(Photo: Getty Images)

Cablevision is lying to customers by claiming that the FCC will require all subscribers to upgrade to digital cable boxes in 2009. Digital cable boxes cost $6.50 per month, plus an extra $10.95 for digital service. Cablevision recently sent a letter to all boxless subscribers threatening to cut several channels unless they forked out a bundle of extra cash for digital service. When one of our family member called for an explanation, Cablevision shirked responsibility and placed the blame squarely on some crazy new FCC mandate. We called shenanigans and decided to call back and record our chats with several customer service representatives. Inside, the recordings of Cablevision lies and the FCC's flaccid response.

Before we get to the recordings, let's look at Cablevision's fairly innocuous letter:

40 million American families don't use a digital cable box. Assuming all cable companies use Cablevision's rates, operators stand to pick up an extra $698,000,000 per month by convincing all 40 million families to shell out an extra $17.45 for digital service. That small piece of change is worth more than the yearly GDP of several small nations.

Cablevision is well within its bounds to charge whatever it wants for service. They can tell us we need a cable box, and that service will now cost $300 per month. That's a freedom afforded by the market. What they can't do is cowardly hide behind the FCC and blame their money-grubbing on the government. Let's listen as they try to do just that:

We spoke with four representatives, each of whom blamed the FCC for forcing us to upgrade to digital cable. We asked one representative how this information was conveyed to the CSRs, and she explained that Cablevision had specifically trained them to point to the FCC.

Let's be perfectly clear: the FCC decision has absolutely nothing to do with the channels Cablevision is taking away, nor does it require anyone to upgrade to a digital cable box.

Don't believe us? Let's see if we can find someone to refute Cablevision.... Maybe Cablevision is up to the task?

We spoke with two representative at the FCC who claim that several cable companies have engaged in similar deceitful and fraudulent actions. According to the representatives, the Commission is powerless to take action. One even defended the cable companies, saying:

"Most of [the cable companies] are blaming it on the FCC. It's easier for us to take it. We have broad shoulders, you know? We're the ones who have to explain it to all the consumers anyway when they find the 800 number and then they start calling and asking us: "why is my cable company doing this to me? I want to file a complaint."

Unfortunately, there are no mandates for good customer service. I wish there was! I would really like there for to be a mandate that says: "I'm sorry, but people on the phone at my cable company have to be nice to me and they have to tell me the truth." I wish there was, but there's not.

A mandate for good customer service couldn't be enforced by the 82nd-airborne, but lying? Regulated companies should not be allowed to lie to their customers.

Thankfully, the bespectacled bossman helming the FCC takes a different view. Chairman Kevin Martin recently slammed retailers for lying about the digital transition, dishing out several million dollars worth of fines to Sears, Best Buy and Walmart. Why can cable companies lie, but not retailers?

We know that Chairman Martin is a good guy who likes consumers. Let's go back and listen to the sweet consumer-protecting swan song he sung so graciously in our defense last year:

If the cable companies had their way, you, your mother and father, or your next door neighbor could go to sleep one night after watching their favorite channel and wake up the next morning to a dark fuzzy screen. This is because the cable operators believe that it is appropriate for them to choose which stations analog cable customers should be able watch. It is not acceptable as a policy matter or as a legal matter.

Kevvy was announcing that cable companies would be required to carry broadcast channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc...) until 2012, and not Travel Planet or RAI, which Cablevision is preparing to yank. The Chairman did, however, explicitly endorse our right to enjoy cable service without a box, and Cablevision's right to require us to rent one:

...the Commission is not forcing consumers to purchase or lease a set top box to continue watching their favorite channels. This decision lies in the hands of the cable company. They can avoid the need for new boxes bychoosing to downconvert the digital signal into analog at their headend. This downconversion would permit analog cable subscribers to continue watching broadcast television just as they do today without disruption.

This isn't the first time Cablevision has used the DTV transition to beat customers like cash-spewing pinatas. The cable giant was previously caught sending letters to prospective customers telling them that TV would disappear in 2009 unless they started paying $240 per year, despite the availability of $20 converter boxes that will keep the Price Is Right up and running.

Cablevision is clearly engaged in a pattern of deception and fraud. The FCC has a responsibility to investigate and admonish Cablevision for their abusive conduct. Predatory upseling simply cannot be tolerated in a responsibly regulated marketplace.

PREVIOUSLY: Cablevision Uses Digital TV Transition To Upsell Basic Cable
Sears, Best Buy, Wal-Mart And Others Fined For Not Warning Consumers About Analog Obsolescence
FCC Takes Action To Prevent Cable Companies From Dropping Digital Broadcast Networks From Analog Cable

We love this call partly because of the war of accents, with Howard Beasley's slow Virginia drawl going head-to-head against what sounds like a young Indian man— we like to pretend Howard is a cartoon basset hound and the phisher is a cartoon weasel.

Howard Beasley told the caller he was being recorded, but the man didn't hang up.

The caller said, "I'm a representative of the United States Banking commission and by mistake we took $481 out of your checking account.", says Howard Beasley.

Howard Beasley started recording.

Howard: The government cannot take money out of your account. So I know this is nothing but a scam.

For ten minutes, an extremely persistent man tried everything he could think of to get Howard's account number, the man said to give back the money.

Caller: What's your bank account number?
Howard: If you got it out, you've got the number.
Caller: Please verify me your account number.
Howard: No way.
Caller: Please verify me your account number.
Howard: No way.
Caller: You don't want the money? You don't want your money?
Howard: I don't want to be scammed.
Caller: Sir, you are not a scam. You have no right to talk to me like that.
Howard: I can tell you to take the $480 dollars and shove it up your *** that's what I can tell you.

The tape continues to roll as the caller spits out Howard's address and threatens to pay him an unwelcome visit.

Caller: I'm just coming within two days with two FBI agents, OK.
Howard: Well, you come down here with two FBI agents.
Howard: I'll have them same two FBI agents on you.
Caller: OK, you just wait and watch. I'm coming within two days.
Howard: Well, you bring 'em here. I've got a 357. I'll put your name on it.

Another brilliant moment: about three and a half minutes in, his wife calls out, "Who are you talking to!?" right after he tells the guy he has a 357. Then she starts yelling at the scammer that her husband has a heart condition. We're pretty sure the scammer had no idea what he was in for when he called this number.

(Thanks to Nicole!)

"Scam Scanner" [WSLS]
(Photos: Weasel: graham; Hounds: Chrys Omori and C Maranon; Goose: ~Sage~)

He said his name was Tim and he then placed me on hold for a supervisor. About 30 seconds later, someone picked up the phone and said, "This is Timothy, how may I help you?" To my surprise, this was still the same agent but he was obviously attempting to disguise his voice. So I asked if he was the supervisor and he said yes. I told him that I was just speaking to him and I would like to speak with his supervisor please. He then called out to someone and said, "Who transferred this call to me?" - apparently attempting to continue to act like he was the supervisor.? It was almost comical that he felt that I couldn't notice that he was the same person. He was trying to speak to me in a deeper voice and it was very obvious he was trying to cover up what he was doing.

He then said let me transfer you back and before I could say anything I was transferred back to "Tim" the agent again. I then asked Tim or "Timothy" why he wouldn't let me talk to a supervisor? He claimed he transferred me to one but I told him that he didn't do a good enough job in disguising his voice and that I wasn't thrown off by the name either!

Timothy the agent/"supervisor" became very belligerent at this point. He started yelling at me, telling me to "Fuck off" several times and using other inappropriate language. There was one point in the recording where he told me to come down to the store and speak to him face to face, as if to provoke a fight.

Hello. The person who helped you originally on the phone did not do anything wrong until you asked to speak to his supervisor.

It's that simple.

Maybe he was a bit tuned during the call due to an email he was replying to, but he was answering your questions to the best of his ability.

Everything that was said after that was a result of this and is considered fruit of a poisonous tree.

Your email was NOT read. The subject line WAS read ONLY as we were expecting your email.

Please do NOT reply as it will not be read.

Thank you, Our apologies, Have a good New Year.

Hello. My name is Charles Hamaoui. I am appalled and very concerned about the events surrounding the original thread with respect to what occured that evening.

It was confirmed by me this call came in after normal working hours on the east coast. The employee that answered the telephone was completely inapropriate and indeed rude. As it turns out, our shorter staffed supervisors were not in the vicinity to overhear the call due to the time it arrived.

This is NOT a reflection of our Company and should be condsidered an isolated incident.

Hello Nickerz.

Thank you for calling this evening. I hope we cleared the air a bit. I doubt it though.

You seemed vindictive and more concerned with finding out who sent the email and if that person is going to be fired or not.

Question, lets say this person had a bad day, made a mistake, and apologized. Lets say this was the job that supported his wife and kids.

Would you still be persistent on getting him fired? or move on and get your answers answered the correct way?

. . .

Charles

Both recordings are below for those of you who want to compare and weigh in on the Charles/Tim identity issue. (This writer thinks they're different men.)

1st Call - "Timothy" (121 KB)
2nd Call - "Charles" (453 KB)

RELATED
"Extended Warranty - DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH NWVDIRECT.COM!!!"

(Thanks to Nicholas!)
(Photo: donwiss.com)

States either have laws requiring one-party or two-party consent. One-party means just one person, which is to say, yourself, has to be okay with recording the call for it to go forward. Two-party means that both parties have to agree to the call being recorded. These are mainly in place to prevent law enforcement from abusing their ability to listen to phone conversations, but if you want to be super-safe, you can make your call from one of the one-party states.

If you should actually ever try to ask permission to record the call. Most customer service reps are trained to terminate the call if the customer is recording the conversation. Kinda strange, considering that every single one of their robo voice lines says, "This call may be recorded," but hey, that's the breaks.

Here's the state-by-state breakdowns, inside...

States Requiring Two-Party Notification
California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Montana
Michigan
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Washington

States Requiring One-Party Notification
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Texas
Utah
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wisconsin

Check this post for options to start recording your calls.

(Photo: Getty)

Note: Every time we offer a tool for recording calls, a lot of people whine about whether it's legal or not...

Technically, we'll never know until a customer is actually sued by a company for recording a call. Otherwise, what follows is a list of states requiring you to tell the other person that you're recording if the call (mainly to ensure that the recording would be legally admissible in court):

States Requiring Two-Party Notification
California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Montana
Michigan
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Washington

All other states only require one-party notification, i.e. yourself.

RecordMyCalls [Official Site]

Call 1 19:20 min: "I'm sobbing and thinking of ending my life."
Call 2 16:22 min : "I'm now literally punching my way through walls with my bare hands."
Call 3 23:00 min: "It is all I can do to keep my temper with this guy. I am inventing new swear words in my mind."
Call 4: "She cuts me off when I ask to speak to a supervisor."
Call 5: "Today I got Comcast. Already a million times better than earthlink."

If Steve was even more clever, he might have tried reaching an executive and mentioning that unless satisfied, he might have to perform his civic duty and warn other customers away from Earthlink by posting his experience. Then it would have evolved from mere revenge tactic to a point of leverage.

The catalog of Steve's adventures in futility remain forever immortalized at his site Earthlink-sucks.com.

(Image: The Illustrated History Of Scientology)

Me: Boy, I sound just like you guys. [Chuckle. Then state clearly:] This call may be recorded for training purposes. [Little laugh.] Maybe you could put in a good word for me?
Representative: [Laughs] Sure.
Me: [Laugh] Thanks. Anyway, here's what's going on with me today...

...He's been informed, and therefore I am within my rights to record the conversation. It's not my problem that the customer service representative might not have taken my statement seriously."

Seemed that when he was in Cingular store earlier that day, the salesman had added on an extra service to Matt's account without his permission, a $19.95/month service that would let him access wireless internet at airports.

The rep on the call, which Matt recorded, basically admits that Cingular store salesmen will add on features that you didn't ask for, just so they can make bonus!

He asks why this service would be on there that he didn't request. She says, "...when you go into a store, they make commission, but I'll just erase this for you...it's best just to go through the phone when you want something, because they're just all about commission, unfortunately."

The service had a 30 day free trial period, so Matt wouldn't have noticed for a month if he hadn't called and checked.

This call was recorded in 2005, so surely they've put a stop to this by now... — BEN POPKEN

Cingular: Here I Come...FUCKERS! [Matt And That]
(Photo: dmeyer)

Rathbun v US basically said that if one party of a phone conversation gave the thumbs up, it was kosher to admit a recorded phone call as evidence in court.

The clear inference is that one entitled to receive the communication may use it for his own benefit or have another use it for him. The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe the conduct here violates Section 605 that either party may record the conversation and publish it.

...Each party to a telephone conversation takes the risk that the other party may have an extension telephone and may allow another to overhear the conversation. When such takes place there has been no violation of any privacy of which the parties may complain. Consequently, one element of Section 605, interception, has not occurred.

RATHBUN v. UNITED STATES, 355 U.S. 107 (1957)

Now, we may consider the admissibility of a call as evidence a much harsher standard then whether it's ok for one party to record a phone call. So if it's ok by the stricter standard, then simply recording it would seem to be ok.

Also, once something crosses state lines, doesn't it become Federal by dint of the Interstate Commerce Clause? There's no specific precedent for this with regard to wiretapping, but if there was, the following would apply:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d)

The Federal law basically says that as long as it's you having the conversation, it's perfectly fine for you to record a customer service call. And why should it be, they're recording you, right?

Big caveat: we're just researching and are not lawyers, so it's entirely possible we have no idea what we're talking about. Illuminate us. — BEN POPKEN

Verizon Doesn't Know Difference Between Dollars And Cents
Verizon Still Can't Count
Escaping Pharma Telemarketing Hell
Recording Of Wretched Dell Call
Quicken And MS Money Are ExtortionWare
WaMu Screws Customer Stranded Overseas After Credit Cards Stolen
T-Mobile Hotspot: Wham, Bam, But No Thanks
ShopNBC Demands Money For Broken TV
Verizon Says Cellphone Ads Only For Users Who Want Them...
Screaming Dell Customer Can't Figure Out How To Shutdown Laptop (Hint: Hold Down The Power Button...)
American Airlines' Retarded Computer
Best Buy Agrees On Tape, "We Do Have A Jackass Working In Our Department"
Demand A T-Mobile Hotspot Refund And Get It
174 Minutes On Hold With Blackberry, With Urination
Extremely Irate Building Manager Screaming For Elevator Repair
Getting Five Starbucks
Cancel Verzion By Moving to Cambodia
Comcast is Nice, Frustrating Man
Delta Tells Ze Frank Off
Travelocity Atrocity
Delta Go Videoblog Boom Boom

(Photo: Amyadoyzie)

After installing the program, press the side button to start recording at any point. CallRec saves the files to your SD memory card. Retrieve the files by syncing with your computer. Finally, email the results to tips@consumerist.com.

CallRec lets you adjust the sample rate if you need to conserve card space. The sound is good, too. Listen to reader Nick's call with Quicken for a sample.

CallRec is a great option for Treo owners, adding to the arsenal of methods consumers can use to record their customer service calls. — BEN POPKEN

CallRec [Official Site]

Both Quicken and MS Money sneak these "sunset" clauses in their end user license agreements, giving them carte blanche to completely disable major parts of their functionality if they feel like it. These features include online bill pay, downloading any financial information, portfolio tracking, and more. Basically, all the cool stuff.

Intuit's rationale is that Quicken '07 has more advanced features than Quicken '04 , and disabling '04 will help them roll the features out more fully.

Quicken only lets you save data in their proprietary format. Otherwise, you can only manually cut and paste 3 years worth of financials into another system, a method they advise in their help documents.

The transaction info doesn't flow through Intuit's servers. It's only between you and the institutions. Not disabling the software wouldn't incur Intuit any costs.

These types of clauses are made in bad-faith, are extortive, are not legitimate ways to recoup costs for the company, and should be illegal.

As an alternative, here are 7 Free Personal Finance Management Programs. — BEN POPKEN

RELATED:
Quicken, Quickly Retired [Washington Post]
MS Money 2004 Expired... [My Personal Finance Blog]
Intuit Pits Its Customers Against Its Partners [InfoWorld]

• From landline to headphone input on recording device: 302-902 TRKIT
• VoIP: Skype plus HotRecorder or plus PowerGramo.
• Outbound only: 3-2-1-Call-Log
• Inbound: Sign up for Grand Central and press 4 when receiving a call
• Call from anywhere, using any device. Monthly and per minute fees apply. RecordMyCalls.com.

— BEN POPKEN

(Photo: mrbill)

Marty, pictured above while traveling with his family in Egypt, made a recording of his horrible customer service experience that you can listen to here. Listen to what a sarcastic unhelpful punk the supervisor is. Somehow he's completely incapable of leaving anyone in the company a message on an answering machine to help this guy out. What a toolbag.

In comparison, when Marty called US Banks to cancel his cards with them stolen in the same batch, the whole thing was wrapped up in 5 minutes.

Despite commercial touting its customer service and personal relationships, Washington Mutual doesn't give a damn about helping its customers when they need it.

Washington Mutual Complaint [Journey to Ancient Civilizations] (Thanks to Dustin!)

After signing up, simply call 321-CALL-LOG, login, and dial the company you're trying to reach. The site patches you through and makes an audio recoding of your phone call that you can later retrieve.

The site also lets create "cases" so you can document your customer service issues.

We weren't able to give the service a try for ourselves as it's in Beta and by invitation only. But according to one of our readers, the invite codes are pretty accessible if you ask for them.

Combine this and the "press 4 to record" function with Grand Central and you're an unstoppable customer service recording machine. Then all you gotta to do is send the juicy recordings to us!

Side note: we wondered how they deal with the different state laws on recording calls. In this paragraph they say they've got it covered. — BEN POPKEN

321-CALL-LOG [Official Site] (Thanks to Vinny!)

UPDATE: We got our invite code less than 12 hours after we asked for it. We'll have to give the thing a shot later.

1) Dial using Skype. This is helped by our
2) a Skype-enabled headphone. We use a Logitech 350.
3) Download and install HotRecorder. We upgraded to the pro version ($14.95) because it lets us record for more than 2 minutes at a time. Nothing like getting into a heated conversation and then saying, can you hold on a second? Make sure to start the recording AFTER you make the connection.
4) Edit the audio. We use Adobe Audition, because we're mad hooked up like that. You might try Audacity (Windows) or GarageBand (Mac).
5) Upload via Odeo. Easy to use, and it gives you style options for nifty embeddable players. Just make sure your files are saved at the proper Hz (ratios of 1100), otherwise you end up with Alvin and The Chipmunks effect.

No messing with virtual cables or buggy programs. Nice. You also can forgo the headset and use your computer's built-in audio recording setup. What variations do/would you use?

When the T-mobile robot said, "This call is being recorded for quality assurance purposes," Jeff said, "Ditto." The T-mobile rep told him to turn off the recorder or the rep would hang up. Jeff asked why. The rep said, "company policy." The rep's supervisor said, "company policy."

Jeff says, "He informed me tmobile and ALL wireless providers have the policy and have had it for years and that if I choose to continue to record the call, they could not help me."

"So the question is: why can they record me, but I can't record them?"

We don't know. We need to find out.

UPDATE: It's totally legal. And you don't need to tell them you're doing it, for the most part. Read more.

The T-Mobile operator is adamant about how since David didn't call the same day, T-Mobile owes him jack. Also, since David didn't read the Terms and Conditions, T-Mobile owes him jack. Eventually, Rudy breaks down in the face of David's unrelenting logic and offers up a free one-day pass (as cash refunds are "impossible") but it's really rare and "most other people won't do it..."

You can hem and haw all you want, but the brass tacks is that David paid money for a service he never received.

"T-Mobile: 'No hotspot? Sorry, no refund either'" [Zdent] (Thanks to David!)

AOL PR issued a statement:

"At AOL, we have zero-tolerance for customer care incidents like this - which is deeply regrettable and also absolutely inexcusable. The employee in question violated our customer service guidelines and practices, and everything that AOL believes to be important in customer care - chief among them being respect for the member, and swiftly honoring their requests. This matter was dealt with immediately and appropriately, and the employee cited here is no longer with the Company."

Too bad AOL still sucks!

Here's the recording, in case you were asleep or don't read BoingBoing, Digg, Metafilter, Anandtech, or Fark. Some observers wondered how the story got posted to so many big sites, so fast. The answer is very simple: Vincent promoted it to all of them. For a while, until Putfile bailed him out, his site was down, having used up all its bandwidth. Internet, for the win.

There's also an interview with Vincent. [Netscape News] (Thanks to Gari N. Corp!)

comment on this post

So here's the summary: "Cancel the account. Cancel the account. Cancel the account. CANCEL THE ACCOUNT. CANCEL THE ACCOUNT. CANCEL THE ACCOUNT. FOR GOD'S SAKE JUST CANCEL THE FUCKING ACCOUNT." After every period, insert a few minutes of AOL CSR John trying to 'help' Vincent somehow figure out a way to keep on paying... generally through the ingratiating method of straight out calling him a liar.

We'll say it again: this is the best thing we have ever posted. If you have anything even remotely this good, mail us. As site creator Joel Johnson just said over AIM, "Fuck. We need more of that on Consumerist."

comment on this post

Canceling AOL [Insignificant Thoughts]

UPDATE: Original story has been dugg-smashed. Here's a mirror.

Australians have never been able to record television shows on their VCRs; it's always been flat-out illegal. Fair enough — one of those delusional little laws that is on the books but everyone from politicians to citizens feel free to circumvent at their leisure. But Australian lawmakers apparently realized that expecting people not to record media on their legal-to-own recording devices was a bit absurd, so they loosened up the law.

So what copying right do Australians have now? They can now legally record a television show or radio program, but they are obliged by law to destroy the copy after one use. Want to have a keepsake of that time your cute little daughter filmed on the local news sitting on Santa's lap? Go to hell, Aussie!

Australians can only watch recordings once. Once, mind! [Wonderland]