« Wetlands still muddy, Bush administration sides with environmentalists | Main | Herbert's Exit Strategy? »

June 23, 2006

Customer Disservice

AOL doesn't like it when you want to cancel your account. They really, really don't like it because they're sure it's in your best interest to keep paying them for their service. In fact, they just might want to talk to your parents before they'll cancel your account. I'm not kidding. In case you haven't seen it, a guy named Vincent Ferrari recorded his unbelievable conversation with an AOL representative and posted it online. It's hilarious and outrageous at the same time.

Posted by Eric Seymour at June 23, 2006 05:32 PM

Comments

I couldn't believe that when I heard it. It's a good thing it was recorded because few would believe it otherwise.

Posted by: Brett at June 23, 2006 06:06 PM | permalink

How long before this guy gets busted for illegally recording a phone conversation?

Posted by: wahoofive at June 24, 2006 01:47 AM | permalink

My parents having spent 45 minutes on the phone with an AOL representative to cancel their account themselves, it sounds more like an outrage. I wonder how endemic the problem is?

Posted by: Chuck at June 24, 2006 11:24 AM | permalink

How long before this guy gets busted for illegally recording a phone conversation?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at June 24, 2006 12:25 PM | permalink

As far as I know, being one of the parties on the call you are allowed without any restrictions to record at your leisure.

I assume one of the legal egales will correct me, but I know Ive read that precendent in a few lawbooks.

Posted by: Foltz at June 24, 2006 01:35 PM | permalink

Of course virtually every jurisdiction makes it illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party. But I looked it up to verify when the recorder is a party and 12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. 38 states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. I suppose we can assume he lived in one of these 38 states.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at June 24, 2006 02:31 PM | permalink

If it's legal in Philly, my brother probably should have recorded the near identical phone call he had when he cancelled his AOL account. Practically word for word...

Posted by: JohnS at June 24, 2006 05:05 PM | permalink

Josh, since I dont recall being asked, but rather told that, "this call may be monitored or recorded" can I assume that notification to the other party rather than concurrence of both parties is sufficient in those other 12 states?

I ask because I’m not aware diverging process trees where I work (Telecom) for call centers in different states.

Posted by: Foltz at June 24, 2006 07:00 PM | permalink

Perhaps the fact that you don't hang up when notified or request any recording to be turned off is considered consent?

Posted by: Eric Seymour at June 24, 2006 08:33 PM | permalink

I'm just waiting for someone to explain how this proves that either capitalism or the Bush administration (or both) are hopelessly flawed. Or do those sorts of commenters no longer hang around?

Posted by: PM at June 24, 2006 09:53 PM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter