click on image to enlarge
First L.E. will provide a fact pattern from which one may draw conclusions:
On or about February 22, 2008 an agent of Cox Communications called and offered L.E. cable internet service for six months at the cost of $19.95 per month, thereafter the cost would rise to $29.95 per month (still less than the Embarq DSL which runs $24.95 plus $10.00 "access fee"). The agent stated that a refurbished cable modem is included in the deal for $0.01.
L.E. stated that he needed to find how to provide a cable outlet for his home office and would accept if an outlet could be placed in a convenient location. The agent said that she would have L.E. called back "in a couple of days."
On or about February 25, 2008 L.E. received that call back. That agent reiterated the offer (including the modem for "one penny.") L.E.
accepted and was told that the conversation confirming the offer and acceptance will be recorded. He agreed and he believed that the deal was concluded.
Subsequently, L.E. received a monthly bill, dated February 28, 2008 from Cox. He noted that the bill included cable internet service from February 27 through March 1, 2008 and a charge of $25.00 for a refurbished cable modem.
L.E. immediately emailed Cox and suggested that a mistake had occurred as the cable modem should be $0.01 not $25.00. He received an email reply which stated "...Cox is committed to providing the best customer service possible. According to our records the pricing for the modem is correct. The penny modem refurbished program ended on January 13, 2008..."[sic]
L.E. responded that indeed he was offered the penny modem on dates in February by a Cox agent and that Cox has the opportunity to review the recorded conversation which confirms the offer and acceptance and should do so.
Cox replied that "we have issued a credit to your account as a one-time courtesy although the promotion had expired."
L.E. believes that Cox's attitude is condescending and again emailed Cox stating that he desired no "one-time courtesy," he merely requests that Cox abide by its side of the bargain. In this case apologize for the error and remove the incorrect charge because Cox is wrong. No one-time courtesy need be expended.
The Cox representative responded "we apologize that you feel you were misinformed by the original representative. As there is no way we can verify the information..."
L.E. found that response unsatisfactory, emailed to that effect and the next day returned the modem and asked that his account be returned to the status it was before the acceptance of the cable internet service.
L.E's actions may appear pedantic as the amount is relatively inconsequential. However, where a monopoly such as Cox treats consumers with such disregard and disdain, one should make a stand for principle as did L.E. If no one does so it is likely that they will become even more overbearing.
As Cox states "Cox is committed to providing the best customer service possible" it should encourage its employees to attempt to do so. It should be a simple matter for Cox to review the record of the offer and acceptance to either agree that it erred or find evidence that L.E. mis-heard. While to do so may be not cost effective as compared with issuing a sordid "one-time courtesy" it is ethically and morally correct. L.E. believes that while a monopoly such as Cox, Las Vegas exists it has no need to perform to its motto.
The attitude of the Cox employee throughout this interaction (a member of the so-called "customer service" department), L.E. believes is condescending and shows little, if any, regard for providing the best customer service possible.
Therefore, L.E. believes that Cox should modify its motto as he cannot find that is is seriously committed to "providing the best customer service possible."
When is the last time that your Cox bill reflected a credit for cable outage?
Cox's monopoly allows it to increase charges to consumers annually (which it apparently never fails to do). Check your next bill as it will be up by two Dollars or more.
