A true outrage: marginalizing the poor with lousy customer service

A recent Daily Kos article exposes a very disturbing move by a company called Cable One. From the article:

Cable One considers people with low scores — which can result from late payment, unemployment, a bounced check, or even erroneous credit reporting — to be “hollow value” customers. That means they are not likely to purchase additional products and services from the company (also known as “upselling”); for example, premium movie channel packages or higher speed internet connections. As such, the “hollow” customers don’t merit help with problems and issues because it is an expense, rather than a potential increase in profit, for the company.

The article goes on to say how customer service costs are part of the monthly cable bill, as opposed to being a separate line item. This means, in effect, that the customers with low credit scores (and in most cases, probably lower incomes as well) are not getting the full value of what they have paid for.

If there’s ever been a more outrageous act by a large company, whether a cable TV/internet provider or otherwise, I have yet to see it. That Cable One even thinks that customers’ credit scores are their business on an operational level, outside of things like calculating a deposit requirement to establish or maintain service, is shocking enough. Using it to determine who gets better customer service? That’s insane, and crosses all sorts of moral and ethical lines.

And soon, it might actually be illegal. The FCC is intending to apply Section 222 of the Communications Act to cable companies. Currently, as written, the law is written to apply to “telecommunications carrier(s)” which it would appear was intended to include only telephone companies as of the time the law was written (prior to deregulation, when cable companies could not sell phone service and the phone companies of the day could not sell multichannel video service (cable television)).

However, some interpretations of the definition of “telecommunications” ănd thus “telecommunications carrier”) would seem to include Internet services as well, especially in light of the fact that it is now feasible to offer phone service over the Internet (voice over IP, or VoIP). I certainly read “telecommunications” as essentially defining the Internet as well as traditional telephone-based services. (Of course, the cable companies will vehemently disagree, because then that means Chapter 222 applies to them, which squashes the shenanigans such as Cable One’s.)

Here’s hoping sanity prevails going forward. The prospect of having to deal with intentionally lousy customer service from my Internet provider is quite unsettling. It’s about just credit scores today, but who knows about tomorrow if the FCC can’t apply Section 222? I’ve written some unflattering things about Comcast in the past. AT&T has also wound up in my crosshairs on a couple of occasions. Right now, these two companies are the main two options for internet access in most of Houston and the surrounding areas (even the Google wi-fi at Starbucks appears to be routed via Comcast and not Google’s own fiber). And no, I’m not going to just shut up about the screwups of Comcast and AT&T. Were I to do so, that would basically be acquiescence to corporate tyranny.