Tech Blogger Tries To Cancel Comcast Service, Hilarity Ensues - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/15/tech-blogger-tries-to-cancel-comcast-service-hilarity-ensues/ <comment><USER2> There is a new law here in Brazil since last week [1]: a customer has the right to cancel any subscription of phone, cable TV or internet contracts without talking to a representative, by automatic system. Just press some keys on the phone or fill a form in the company's website and it's done, with confirmation code and fully cancelled in two business days.

If the customer really wants to talk to a representative to cancel the services, the cancellation must be effective immediately.

[1] [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt- BR&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fg1.globo.com%2Feconomia%2Fseu- dinheiro%2Fnoticia%2F2014%2F07%2Fcomeca-valer-regra-que-facilita-cancelar-o- servico-de-telefonia.html&edit-text=)

<comment><USER3> What a pain it was to cancel a Telemar landline and Velox DSL subscription. I had to report them to Anatel. It was the only way to get it cancelled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's only one easy way to cancel service with a company like Comcast. You have to lie and tell them you're moving to a city that they don't serve.

They don't transfer you to customer retention and you'll be off the phone in a few minutes.

<comment><USER5> I usually cover all bases by claiming I'm emigrating and leaving the _country_ \- only way to be sure :)

<comment><USER6> "I an in the Navy, and will be in a submarine for the next two years"

<comment><USER7> Just don't get caught lying on a recording about being a military member. That's a felony. ;)

<comment><USER8> No, it's not.

I assume you're incorrectly referring to the Stolen Valor Act (of 2013, as the earlier one was struck down for violating the First Amendment). That law specifically handles cases in which someone claims they are a recipient of an award related to combat AND does so with the intent to receive money, property or a tangible benefit.

Simply lying about military service to a Comcast Support Technician is not a crime.

<comment><USER9> It rather depend where you are. [Yes the assumption here is North America / USA, not sure on Comcast's reach?]

In the UK under Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Act 1906 Section 1, due to a technicality (excision of restricting terms) any [im]personation of HM Forces' seamen or soldiers is illegal.¹

It's been superseded by the Fraud Act 2006 which is more strict in needing a fraud to be committed viz "he false representation is made dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain".

1 - [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/6/5#commentary-c578...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/6/5#commentary-c578537)

2 - [http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc308_Statute_Law_R...](http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc308_Statute_Law_Repeals_18.pdf) at page 39 (PDF page 43)

<comment><USER10> Getting rid of Comcast would definitely be "making a gain". Ugh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This being HN no one likes to talk about regulatory solutions, but the silence on this one is startling. Wasn't there a day in the US when companies would be fined for this sort of business practice?

Why can't we go there today? Is it simply the triumph of free-market orthodoxy and a tacit acceptance that to be a consumer today one must subject oneself to this sort of rapaciousness?

<comment><USER12> I think you're missing the point all together. The only reason a company can behave this way and retain the number of customers who would have otherwise moved elsewhere is because there _isn 't_ a free-market. The companies are run as oligopolies. It is government intervention and protection that has caused this problem in the first place which is what most people don't realize.

<comment><USER13> (edited for source)

There is no such thing as a free market: it is an idealistic theoretical construct.

And even if it were real, it would only be efficient if P=NP[0].

0\. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2284](http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2284)

<comment><USER14> _" And even if it were real, it would only be efficient if P=NP."_

Because finding global optima is hard? I grant that, but:

1) things can be intractably hard even if P=NP - O(n^10000) is in P, and there are complexity classes strictly harder than P (e.g. EXPTIME)), and since there are innumerable moves anyone could take out into the future "optimal resource distribution" could plausibly fall in EXPTIME.

2) Regardless, any single entity determining optimal resource distribution _also_ needs to solve the same problem.

If you were saying something else, please clarify.

<comment><USER13> My edit cited the paper in question, where the author shows how to use markets to solve NP-complete problems.

Either markets are weak-form efficient and P=NP, or markets are not weak-form efficient and P≠NP.

<comment><USER14> Ah. Cute, but doesn't look like something that can actually be applied to the real world.

<comment><USER13> Kind of like theoretical free markets.

<comment><USER14> Snarky.

The difference is that you can have a model that is not precise and which still makes useful predictions. You can't have a proof that's not precise and still proves P=NP.

Note that it is not "the existence of free markets" that is assumed and breaks things, but the existence of free markets with a particular formulation of a particular property. As strictly defined there, weak-form efficiency also allows seems to allow FTL communication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> We're an entrepreneurial community and here is a case of demand.

Why not meet the demand to cut off internet services?

One idea: create a phone service where I call a third-party (you, the entrepreneur) that connects me to the best number to cancel my service. The third party determines if recording the call is legal and records if so, posting the recording online, along with metadata: date, duration, agent name, locale, etc. If recording call is not legal, still post metadata, or also get all parties' permission to record.

Possibly create script through trial and error to counter their script. Can compile data on agents and supervisors names, can follow up with complaints for agents or supervisors to customer service, etc. Can file complaints with elected representatives, FCC, etc... stuff individuals don't have time for but want to.

Another idea: create a web site that takes subscriber information and mails effective letter, registered if necessary, to best address for service provider, using language to set up legal case if necessary.

In both cases, the company could, over time, compile statistics on each service provider's difficulties, giving some accountability. It could also discover their weaknesses and overcome what individuals might not be able to.

You can probably think of many other ways to attack the problem and satisfy the unmet need.

Might not make huge money, but could create great visibility for the entrepreneur. Then again, it might make huge money too, since so many companies play hardball retaining customers.

<comment><USER16> Just tell them you're moving to another state/country. Works for me

<comment><USER17> "Oh, you want to transfer your Comcast account to a new home? Tell me your new address and we can start the migration process."

<comment><USER18> Totally sleezy. No self respecting person would do this. That said, I've dealt with comcast before. After telling them I would cancel due to their arbitrary "end of promotion" I was redirected to their "loyalty department" which miraculously found another promotion for me that would prevent me from paying $80 a month for slow buffering internet.

<comment><USER19> > _Totally sleezy. No self respecting person would do this_

If it even occured to them it might be sleezy, they'd rationalize that they do it to please their boss and keep their job, and that it's more important to them than being decent to a random stranger :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've had lots of trouble with ISPs before. About a decade ago Bulldog Broadband were the first to offer 8Mb service in London, and at a reasonable price, and they oversold so massively their staff couldn't cope.

After a month of no service I called to cancel, and after 45 minutes on hold I gave up. I tried again. And again. Eventually I got through to someone who processed the cancellation. I got an email saying "To confirm your intended cancellation, send an email to cancellation-confirmation@..."

That address didn't exist. The next month they started to charge me for a service I wasn't getting. I had a different ISP by this point. I called and got the money back. They took it again the next month. I called and got the money back. The third month I got a letter saying I hadn't paid for three months, so they took three months money from my card. This time I called and got the money back and demanded they remove me from their systems. Eventually someone said OK.

Six months later I got a demand for 9 months service charges. I called and told them to stuff it. Another six months later they started demanding even more money and making threats. That's when I started the official (UK) complaints procedure. You start by writing a long email setting out your demands, end it by saying "This will also be sent by registered mail, and you have 30 days to resolve this until I report you to the communications ombudsman"

The first response I got to that was a letter saying "We understand you'd like to cancel your service?" So I sent another letter, stating my demands and that no, there had never been a service to cancel, and by the way this is being sent by registered post and you have 18 days before I contact the ombudsman.

I think by the third letter it had been resolved, almost 18 months since I first tried to cancel the account. I had to move house shortly after that though, and I've worried since then that one day they're going to turn around and say "hold on, this guy owes us for ten years of broadband! Let's ruin his credit rating!"

<comment><USER21> I don't understand why you put up with them charging you so many times. After the second fraudulent charge, I'd just deal with my credit card company directly. Call them up and have the charges reversed. You get your money back and they get punished by their card company for the fraudulent charge.

If more people did this, instead of waiting on hold for hours to fight with customer service for your own money back, the ISP would likely lose their merchant account for their fraudulent activity.

Edit: one other note when cancelling, make sure to take down the date, time and operator name & number during your interactions and note what was said. When I've had trouble with managing accounts, referencing that information strengthened my case dramatically.

I have a Google Doc that I keep for all these notes. While I'm on hold, I open up the doc and get it ready. Be clear that you're taking notes and they'll take the conversation more seriously too.

<comment><USER22> You can pay bills with credit cards?

<comment><USER23> Bank charges are also reversible.

<comment><USER21> I don't use a debit card much but I heard that you don't get as many consumer protects with debit cards as you do with credit cards. If you're going to pay bills, for many reasons, use a credit card instead of debit cards.

<comment><USER24> You have virtually NO consumer protection with a debit card. Once the money is gone, it is gone.

This is why merchant acquirers charge a flat rate of a few pence for debit card transactions, and an extortionate percentage for credit card transactions - chargeback risk. Cannae do with a debit card without bumping into Dante and his buddy in their digs first.

<comment><USER21> > a few pence

Is that the case in England? In the States, there are _many_ debit card protections, they're just not as extensive as credit card protections.

<comment><USER20> There are some protections in the UK for debit card use, but less than for credit card. Credit Card use has more legal protections because it is an instrument of debt, and the CC provider is legally a party to the debt, which comes with a whole bunch of responsibilities. Debit cards are protected by some legal stuff and the banking code.

In this case debt is good :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm in the Bay Area. I recently switched from a Comcast business circuit down to a residential circuit. The Comcast Loyalty Rep was fierce. Insisting I owed them 60 days notice, even though I was in a month to month contract. Told me he had to have me sign paperwork to cancel that was going to take up to a week to e-mail to me. I put up a fight, insisted on a supervisor, whom conveniently was in a Chicago office for another week.

So what did I do? I called 3 other times in a row, got 3 different people, asked to speak to a supervisor. Each said I would have a call back within 24 - 48 business hours.

I did. They called.

I explained all about the paperwork and supervisor out of town and it was literally all made up. All of it.

EDIT: My better side is resisting not calling out the guy who gave me the hassle by posting his name and e-mail.

EDIT 2: I forgot to mention that the rep tried to tell me that the "Terms Of Service" I signed the contract with wasn't valid anymore because it was to old. I asked well I didn't get any new paperwork to agree to the new Terms Of Service. His reply was that paying my bill every month was agreement enough, I didn't need to be told about changes. Doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER26> One way to guarantee a reason to get a supervisor is to state "Because of the security nature of this call I am unable to reveal that information."

<comment><USER25> That is an interesting idea!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Here in the Netherlands the situation got significantly better after a famous comedian (Youp van 't Hek) went completely public with the misery that ensued after calling t-mobile to get a problem fixed with his sons iPhone. ([http://www.nrcnext.nl/blog/2010/10/25/youp-vant-hek- brengt-t...](http://www.nrcnext.nl/blog/2010/10/25/youp-vant-hek-brengt-t- mobile-imagoschade-toe/))

T-mobile found themselves suddenly completely on the defensive in various TV- shows. They apologized profusely. It was very funny, things really got better.

<comment><USER28> Is there an English translation of this floating around somewhere? I'm curious to know the specifics of the exchange.

<comment><USER27> I can't find it if there is any. I'd Google "Youp van 't hek tmobile" and use Google translate, sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm amazed at how calm he remains during this. I would've called the guy - regardless of whether he's "just doing his job" \- every name under the sun and probably threatened to pay him a visit in person...

That said, I guess if I were recording it to share on the Internet later, I might've been able to control myself slightly more than usual.

<comment><USER30> This guys have it rough. I used to call them a lot and I can't recall a single instance where I saw someone raising their voice had a better outcome. The only had a more stressful call.

The operator pushes it a lot but consider this: he is probably paid like shit and he probably get commission on how many customers he can retain. Maybe if he loses too many he can even lose his job. Knowing this and knowing that their job is extremely horrible(getting called names all day) what I see here is not the operator's fault at all. I see a person crushed by a job that he might be losing taking the blame for problems that he didn't cause(maybe in this instance but they often do). The only thing I have for someone like this is a kind word instead of rage. If you are unsatisfied at the end of the call, send a complaint letter about the service, do not take it on the operator.

(Obviously there are exceptions where the operators are just assholes)

<comment><USER31> That is a bit like worrying about the innocents working on the deathstar.

They know what kind of job it is. They do it anyway.

<comment><USER32> Very few people have the job flexibility that many of us here on HN have. This may be the best-paying job available to this person, or the only job they were able to get that they can effectively travel to -- regardless, given the unpleasant nature of the work, it's unreasonable to assume that they meaningfully "chose" the job without additional evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've heard multiple times now that it's hard to cancel contracts at various providers, but I don't really see how this is an issue.

If the official way (according to the contract) to cancel a contract is a phone call, what difference does it make if the remote party accepts this cancellation? Just state that you are cancelling the contract, make sure to get a recording (if legal in your jurisdiction) and chargeback all unauthorized future credit card charges.

<comment><USER34> And then they'll eventually send your account to collections, where it will be an even bigger pain to straighten out.

Something similar happened to me with AT&T (now Comcast, I believe) in Chicago. I was moving away so I canceled service, returned my equipment in person and even got a receipt! But someone forgot to log something somewhere, so they kept sending me bills. For months, I kept calling and (foolishly) believed them when they said it would be straightened out soon... until they threatened to send my account to collections.

In the end, it took a letter to the office of the CEO with the whole story and a copy of my receipt to fix things (and if it hadn't I'd already started researching my legal options).

<comment><USER35> The last time that happened to me, collections took one look at the notes on the account, apologised, informed me that his manager was now writing an extremely annoyed email to billing, and had it fixed before I was off the phone.

Collections tend to be more likely to play hardball, but they often also tend to contain smarter humans. Sometimes this helps.

<comment><USER36> I did this once, and was impressed with how intelligent, friendly, and helpful the collections agency was.

Unfortunately, billing responded to the collections agency by yanking the debt back from that collections agency and referring it to another, meaning I had to start all over again. I don't know if that's against the rules, but it didn't seem fair and certainly wasn't nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The only thing you say at this point is "I request you to close my account effective immediately. Is my account closed yet?". Anything else you say (e.g. "You're the reason I'm leaving" or even "I'm moving to Mars") will be used as conversational leverage against you.

Other than that, have fun with it. I got a manipulative rep when I canceled Sirius and told her I already threw away the radio when she tried to extend the contract. She was not prepared for that. :)

</comment><comment><USER38> Step one: write letter saying you want to cancel your service.

Step two: send the letter via certified mail to the company whose service you're cancelling, cc'd to your state attorney general's office.

Step three: there is no step 3.

<comment><USER39> How does one cc a letter?

<comment><USER40> cc stands for "carbon copy", which was a mechanism for hard copy letters.

<comment><USER39> I thought the point of "cc" on an email was to prove you've sent something to someone.

How can you achieve the same with a letter?

I can obviously just write the same letter twice and send it to two different places, but neither will know the other was also sent the same thing.

<comment><USER40> > I thought the point of "cc" on an email was to prove you've sent something > to someone.

It doesn't _prove_ anything, but it does provide notice.

> How can you achieve the same with a letter?

On a letter, you can acheive the same thing that cc: <email address> does on an email by putting cc: <recipient name> on the bottom of the letter, after the signature line, and then making identical copies of the letter and setting to both the addressee and the other recipient named in the cc: notation.

Which is the practice that inspired the use in email.

<comment><USER41> This is a fascinating thread. I wonder if formal letter writing is still taught in grade school?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I couldn't cancel my Comcast service via phone because the automatic system hung up on me (I tried again the next day).

I just stopped paying (removed my credit card from the system), and after calling me multiple times about the outstanding charges, they eventually figured out that I wanted to cancel.

They still tried to bill me for the time between when I attempted to cancel and when the service was actually disconnected, even though I explained I was unwilling to pay this amount. Ultimately, they transferred the bill to a debt collection agency, and unfortunately I failed to dispute within 30 days (was traveling), so I ended up having to pay it.

</comment><comment><USER43> Its a corrupt market. Their job is to lie to you, your job has to be to lie right back.

"I'm moving to (insert name of city owned by competitor)"

<comment><USER44> >"I'm moving to (insert name of city owned by competitor)"

Unfortunately, that's becoming harder and harder to do...

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast- Time_Warner_Cable_mer...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast- Time_Warner_Cable_merger)

<comment><USER45> "I'm moving to Berlin"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Wow, reminds me of the guy trying to cancel his AOL account: [http://consumerist.com/2006/06/13/the-best-thing-we-have- eve...](http://consumerist.com/2006/06/13/the-best-thing-we-have-ever-posted- reader-tries-to-cancel-aol/)

<comment><USER47> Yeah, the first thing I thought was "AOL employee gets the AOL treatment."

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I only had a little bit of difficulty canceling my comcast service. After I figured out what the customer service guy was doing, it went a little like this:

\- I don't owe you an explanation.

\- I'm in a hurry. Cancel my service now.

\- I have your name. I will call back to complain about you.

\- If another bill comes, I will not pay. If you send a collection agency and it affects my credit rating, I'll take you to court.

\- You have 30 seconds to comply.

<comment><USER49> At some companies, reps are trained to trigger on phrases like "talk to my lawyer", "i'll see you in court" and "i'm going to sue you" and transfer you IMMEDIATELY to a legal department.

I learned this the hard way with a car moving company; from that point on, my account was tagged with a "transfer to legal" and I couldn't even talk to a rep.

YMMV, but mentioning legal action is one way to get yourself into limbo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm only halfway through but this is driving me crazy. I'm actually feeling extremely furious.

This is why I hate to pick up the phone to talk to companies and instead want automated systems where I can fill out forms and get my job done under 3 minutes, no questions asked.

</comment><comment><USER51> This reminds me of that study a few months ago about how customer satisfaction has no correlation or possibly a slight negative with profitability. I guess I see why now.

One example link to a new story covering the result: [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-17/proof- that-i...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-17/proof-that-it-pays- to-be-americas-most-hated-companies)

</comment><comment><USER52> Aaaaah! Get meta!!! We can all appreciate the value of having this recording be available as a learning opportunity for consumers.

If you have the sense to know you are being strung along, become the questioner and outflank the rep every time.

Them: "I'm just trying to understand..." You: "I find Comcast's customer service to be poor. Let's see if you can help with that. Can you tell me if you are empowered to quickly cancel my service without probing any further?" Them: _doesn 't matter_ if they do anything but answer your question You if "yes": "Let's cancel and ask no more questions then." You if anything else: "I need to talk to someone who is able to execute my request. I'd like to talk to your supervisor."

You will be put on hold and forced to wait.

You do not ratchet down the intensity of your demands unless you know that your request is in motion. You mostly continue to treat the call as being with one entity (it is). If the next person makes any inquiries/reasons, etc.

You: "I am not answering any further questions. I am cancelling the service. Are YOU empowered to execute this process without further probing?"

Leave them only with yes/no answers directly related to them executing the action you want. Any words you provide other than repetition of the action or requests to escalate will be used against you.

If not, keep asking for supervisors. Poor level 1 is just doing their soul- crushing job. Every middle manager is desperately trying to not do that any more.

Until they have so many people trying to jump over level 1 will you ever need to waste time in level 2. I've only once had to go to level 3.

Does Comcast hire from the list of people with restraining orders on them? Sounds like some guy trying to not get dumped.

<comment><USER53> Is your goal to sound like a robot?

<comment><USER52> I am cancelling your response service. Are you empowered to do this? Can I speak to your supervisor?

The goal is to cancel/get service/refund/etc with as little wasted time and energy as possible. They have scripts and procedures.

My strategy is equivalent to punching 0 to get to the human. in the phone tree maze. Putting a human shield on the other end is not stopping me from cancelling and they will not cry their tear ducts raw about my cancellation or my intolerance for their bullshit. I'm not being abusive, just terse.

Corporate service reps don't reward style points.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I thoroughly dislike Comcast and would go to great effort to avoid their service.

That said, as funny as this is, this to me is more of a failing on a personal level than by Comcast as a whole. He seems more angry at the caller because he's losing the argument and not getting any concessions and just wants some sort of response or willingness to hear what he's saying. I sincerely believe that by the midpoint of that recording he was no longer interested in keeping the customer, he just wanted to win a point in the argument to protect his ego.

Interestingly, these are the _last_ people you want handling sales/customer retention calls because they don't empathize with the customer or see the situation from their point of view at all. They're more worried about their appearance than the ultimate business goal, which is increasing sales.

I'm pretty certain that he would be reprimanded for this behavior.

<comment><USER43> "I'm pretty certain that he would be reprimanded for this behavior."

I could not disagree more.

That makes the huge assumption that the retention department is measured and paid by metrics like "increasing sales". I am almost 100% certain that would not be the case.

The longer you keep a quitting customer on the phone the less likely they are to leave, the more likely they are to give up hope and keep paying. Awesome job.

The company pays the retention rep to read arguments from a script to a quitting customer, and the rep read all of them, awesome.

Lets say we get $150/month from this customer and it costs us $8/hr for this customer's monthly hour long call to argue and lie to the customer. The company is not seeing a financial problem here. At $5/day revenue even if all the rep does is slow down the customer by one pro-rated day, as long as the rep spends less than 30 minutes per call the company is still making a "profit". More typically if you just lie to the customer and get on average half a billing period out of them, thats an awesome profit.

You get what you measure and select for.

"because they don't empathize with the customer"

Why would a monopoly provider want to do that? It doesn't even make sense. Like hiring a police chief based on how well he empathizes with the crooks, or promoting a military officer based on how sympathetic he is to the other side, or appointing a religious leader based on how strongly he believes in the opposition's point of view.

<comment><USER54> Believe me, I understand the "this makes good business sense on paper" angle. To me it is very clear that this guy is not reading from a script. He is clearly angered and frustrated on a personal level by the customer's unwillingness to talk to him. The best example of this is probably at the end of the call when he refuses to give a confirmation code. I'd bet a week's pay that he had one to give, but was so angry that he just wanted to be argumentative to score a point in the argument. It almost reminded me of childhood fights I had with my brother when I was twelve.

 _Why would a monopoly provider want to do that?_

But Comcast isn't a monopoly in most major markets, and I'm guessing if this guy worked as a tech blogger he probably lives in a market where he can choose from Fios, Uverse, Comcast, etc. Increasingly people have more choice in which service provider they use, and even in the markets where Comcast is a monopoly, it is seldom good business to piss off your customers. There's a difference between putting up barriers between somebody who is upset and is threatening to cancel service and somebody who clearly has made the decision to leave and wants the service to be disconnected, which clearly this guy was.

When I worked in a major telecom we used to review customer service calls and I can tell you that this guy would not be applauded for that behavior. Probably given a stern warning and possibly terminated. Telecoms may be ruthless business people, but nobody is stupid enough to believe that this kind of behavior is good business. The guy was frustrated and did his job poorly. That's pretty much what this boils down to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I cancelled my Comcast on Friday. It was incredibly easy. I didn't have to stay on hold, and they even offered to mail a postage-paid box for me to return my modem.

I was pleasantly surprised.

</comment><comment><USER56> OMG is Comcast brainwashing their staff? This guy sounds like some Scientology nut.

<comment><USER57> No, this guy works in the cancellations department, to which you are connected when you indicate that you want to cancel your service. That means it is his sole job to convince persons to not cancel the service. He also receives a bonus for every phone call he makes that does not result in a cancellation. For you it's 15 minutes of time wasted, for him it means 15 minutes of hard work that came very close to paying off.

<comment><USER58> I wonder how long I could manage to get that guy to stick on the phone... I love being an asshole.

<comment><USER59> There must be a business opportunity here. Connect people who hate dealing with this stuff to people like you who love being an asshole. They get their service canceled without dealing with crap on the phone, you get to play the bad guy, everybody wins.

<comment><USER43> Its called being a lawyer. Its more about form letters sent via registered mail and filing legal injunctions than talking on the phone.

A decade or so ago, I came within days of needing one merely to disconnect a DSL line.

Once the cost of fighting the collections agency and the cost of the hit to your credit record exceed the minimal cost of hiring the lawyer, its a pretty obvious move.

Not kidding around at all, although its probably a better topic for a law blog than HN.

The main problem they're likely to have is authentication. Helping people is fun. Helping people who like having fun by disconnecting other people (-ex's, etc) is a problem and you need to authenticate them cheaply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Im in Australia, and have been with about 12 ISP's over the years and have never had this sort of problem. Not that our Telcos are without problems, they are often horrible to deal with when requiring support. One thing we have which may be a deterrent for this behavior is the Telecommunication Ombudsman (TIO) which is basically a government watchdog for the Telcos. Every formal complaint to the TIO results in a fee charged to the Telco even if they are not at fault, and if they are proven to be at fault the cost is much greater. I would think that Comcast would think twice about this sort of behavior if it was going to result in a governmental fine in every case.

</comment><comment><USER61> I had an issue like this with Three in the UK, everyone in the office who was listening for 25 minutes of my lunch to the conversation.

-Hi, I'd like to cancel.

-Cool, we are upgrading your account so you don't need to. -Umm, just cancel it please.

-Today only, you get 5GB for free

-I don't care, I want to cancel.

-Why?

-Because I don't need your service anymore.

-But what about the free data!?

-I don't need you, I am moving country.

-What country and when? Do you want another month before you leave?

-I am leaving tomorrow.

-But what about the free 5gb?

-If I say yes to the free 5gb, then what happens?

-Well we can't make more than 1 change to your account in a day, so you can't cancel if you accept our upgrade.

-Then just cancel.

-Ok putting your through to the right department

 _line goes dead_

Next attempt, they take my number in case line goes dead, it does, they ring back, after one ring, line goes dead.

Third attempt, they cancel it.

<comment><USER62> I begin to suspect going nuclear is the only option. "Hi, I'd like to cancel my service" "But what about X?" "Ombudsman and or Lawyers. Cancel. You have been instructed, the next time I say this will be in court/writing/etc".

<comment><USER49> They'll just transfer you to legal. Worst case, they tag your account and do this every time you call, and you're in limbo for months. Ugh.

<comment><USER63> That's not how it works. They won't transfer you to a lawyer: those are damned expensive.

In Australia, if you threaten to go to an ombudsman, companies tend to listen. Ombudsman cases are very expensive.

<comment><USER64> Legal department are not lawyers, and are also usually much much smaller in size than customer support as a whole. Also legal departments are typically fairly terrible at resolving disputes in a reasonable amount of time (before months have passed). Even if your issue is simple or a misunderstanding, if you get transferred to legal, it is no longer simple at that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I've cancelled Comcast a few times before when ATT had a better deal and it was never this bad. They usually try to give me a better deal but sorry I've made my decision thats why I am calling, if you gave me a better rate to begin with I might not be leaving.

With Comcast you can usually just hang up and call again if you get an employee with an attitude. This method works with tech support too, hang up and try again if you get someone who just wants to keep reseting your router or doesn't have any idea.

<comment><USER66> > With Comcast you can usually just hang up and call again if you get an > employee with an attitude.

I'm guessing that this tactic might actually make the nice employees look bad. The employees with an attitude will have better customer retention metrics; then the nice customer service reps risk losing their jobs or also developing an attitude.

<comment><USER59> Even if that's true, Comcast's bad metrics aren't our responsibility.

<comment><USER51> The point is that this tactic would be selecting against the nice reps in the long run. Of course, I can't think of any other tactic that wouldn't do so.

<comment><USER59> Understood, but my point is that it is _their_ responsibility to select for nice reps, not ours. If their metrics combined with the natural customer reaction selects for bad reps, that's their fault and their problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Cue Comcast statement to the effect of "This behavior is not company-approved, and the service representative will be reprimanded" in 3, 2, 1...

</comment><comment><USER68> I've had Comcast service more than once, and I'm with them now. In the past, I left them for AT&T DSL because the price/speed ratio was sensible enough to make it worth switching. When I called Comcast to cancel service, I didn't run into anything like this. The rep did try to convince me to stay, but after I explained that I didn't need 12Mbps (the max Comcast offered at that time in my area) they capitulated and canceled the service. It was maybe a three minute conversation at most.

I ended up going back to Comcast a few years ago, when they advertised 25Mbps for the price I was paying for 6Mbps on DSL, so it made sense to go back. Now I wonder, if I were to try to cancel today, would I get the same hassle as this guy? I'm betting so; they are probably trying to retain as many customers as possible leading up to the upcoming merger.

</comment><comment><USER69> I just cancelled my Time Warner Internet a few minutes ago (switched to FiOS). The call took all of 8 minutes and the rep didn't put up a fight at all. I joked that it might actually be worth continuing to pay $50/month to avoid the hassle of canceling, so this left me pleasantly surprised.

<comment><USER70> Once I moved and realized I forgot to turn off my phone and DSL. The company did it in minutes over the cell phone. I was surprised, and a little worried, by how easy it was.

<comment><USER64> Cancellation isn't always a nightmare, even for companies with bad practices. But it's luck of the draw, and your luck can run out at any time, at least while government continues to stall on adequate consumer protections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I went through a situation similar to this with Dell about 8 years ago. The guy told me he had no supervisor and that I had to deal with him. I promptly recorded the call, called back and left a message of the call. The same fellow then called me back and said I was rude and let me speak to his supervisor. There is no way I would have spent this amount of time with this person. I would have gotten his name or recorded him refusing to give it to me and called back and promptly went straight to a supervisor and got this issue solved. Companies that have this kind of policy and are ok with these types of employees talking to customers like this quickly loose all their customers to competition as soon as their competition catches up in technology.

<comment><USER72> Comcast is a monopoly in many markets so you are limited in how you might give your business to other providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Now I almost want to call Comcast and try to cancel service, _even though I don 't have any Comcast service_.

Better yet, somebody should write a bot using voice recognition, TTS, and a state-machine, and have it call and mess with these people.

</comment><comment><USER74> Comcast/Xfinity is the most dishonest company that i've ever been a customer with.

We signed up during a promotional deal and when the deal ended I got a bill for 2x+ what i normally pay. I called customer service and they explained that the roll-over from the promotional service into the new service was billed at the start of the month and the last bill from the promotion was at the end of the month. The net effect was a double billing.

When we called comcast to disconnect we got the same run around as to why we are disconnecting. It wasn't nearly as bad as this call however.

Honestly, the worst company ever. I will never do business with them again.

</comment><comment><USER75> Those of us who are sticking with Comcast also have the pleasure of going through this script once a year, just to get Comcast's best pricing. Of course, we get to shortcut out of it by agreeing to stay.

</comment><comment><USER76> Does anyone who works in Comcast know what the incentive is for keeping someone from disconnecting?

Maybe there is a bonus involved for the employee with the least amount of disconnections per phone calls received?

<comment><USER20> If you're so obnoxious that they go away, they might not call back to cancel again for a few days, and maybe that means you can charge them for an extra month. Or maybe they just give up all together.

Customer retention strategy for assholes basically :)

<comment><USER51> That's the incentive for the company. The incentive for the rep, presumably, is that they get paid a commission based on how many cancellations they prevent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Can you just send a certified or registered letter demanding that service be terminated, with correct authentication information, and then skip this process?

Maybe on a law firm's letterhead?

(OTOH, I love fucking with these people on the phone. "Why are you canceling service?" "Because God told me the Internet is evil; Because I decided meth|guns|tinfoil|etc. would be better use of my money; Because a court demands I not have contact with the Internet for the next 3 years as a term of my release.")

</comment><comment><USER78> Is the Comcast guy going to get a fabulous raise because of his efforts?

I just can't imagine how a regular employee would be this pushy if there's minimal personal gains in it for him.

<comment><USER79> More like continued employment. Why have a customer retention agent on the payroll if they retain few or no customers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I thought it was really weird last week when I called to cancel my Comcast internet service and it was so easy! I only have internet, no TV or phone, and when the "teaser" rate expired, they wanted $85 per month. No way, ppl. I have plenty of alternatives in SF, fortunately.

They only made one feeble attempt to offer me a better rate. They even sent me a shipping box to return their router in, for free.

I was really confused by this experience, but maybe this explains it.

</comment><comment><USER81> I feel like taking a shower after listening to this call. Is this what it's like most of the time in the US when dealing with service representatives?

<comment><USER82> Yes.

<comment><USER59> No. 99.9% of the time, the people you get on the phone are courteous and helpful. Comcast is notorious for poor service precisely because it is _not_ the norm. Sanity check: if this happened to everybody all the time, why would it be making the rounds on the internet? Anything that is newsworthy is rare by definition.

<comment><USER74> Although Comcast is notorious for having terrible customer service, this is NOT the only fee-for-service business that deals with disconnects like this that I have dealt with.

It seems to be a trend now to harangue customers when they want to terminate service contracts.

I wouldn't be surprised if certain companies pay retention bonuses if they can keep a 'disconnect call' from actually disconnecting.

<comment><USER59> Attempting to retain departing customers is fairly standard. Hassling them to anywhere near this extent is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I want to sign up for Comcast just to cancel now.

<comment><USER84> "Am I being Punked?" Haha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I called and cancelled my service with them this morning. The Comcast rep started to ask why, but I simply said I want to cancel my service. She said, "OK, we are sad to see you go, I'll begin work on doing the disconnection now..."

It was pretty painless. I guess it all depends on who you get on the other side of the phone.

</comment><comment><USER86> Had the exact same experience with Clear.com (which I think has since been acquired) a few years back:

[http://www.bird-dog.co/blog/2012/11/05/clear-com-makes-it- im...](http://www.bird-dog.co/blog/2012/11/05/clear-com-makes-it-impossible- to-cancel-your-account)

</comment><comment><USER87> I had an experience similar to this last week. And I was trying to cancel my business account SO I COULD OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT TO REPLACE IT. Comcast is so bad at service provisioning and customer service, I'm thinking that it's actually their superpower.

</comment><comment><USER88> He should've said he wanted to go to Google Fiber. I know that makes Comcast furious.

</comment><comment><USER89> I'm moving in two weeks into a building where Comcast is the only option for internet.

... Yikes.

</comment><comment><USER90> for all the evils people dump on Comcast they are far far better than any home security company I have dealt with or heard of from others.

Comcast at least in the metro Atlanta area has been really easy to deal with. When I cancelled phone service I simply told them I was going cell only. When I wanted to use my own modem their tech helped me setup mine and told me where to return theirs. When I returned their modem to the local service center all I got was smiles.

So yeah I am pretty sure you can get miserable or similar service from them but I have always found going in with good attitude makes the process dead simple and swift.

</comment><comment><USER91> This is hilarious. Sadly, this employee probably got a promotion internally for being absurdly fantastic at his job. It sounds like a South Park episode, "Ohhhh, that's too baaaaaaaaaahhhhd."

</comment><comment><USER92> So damn fun fighting w/ media mercenaries to cancel/get out of service/contracts - add these dummies to the "Ass-Clown Bin" w/ Airliners, Politicians, Anti-Vacciners, etc.

</comment><comment><USER93> How I cancelled my phone plan in <1 minute. Me: I would like to cancel my plan. Rep: Why? Me: I am leaving the country. Rep: Congratulations! Your plan is cancelled. Best wishes. Me: Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER94> Three words to follow up with: Class Action Lawsuit [http://www.millslawfirm.com/classaction.html](http://www.millslawfirm.com/classaction.html)

</comment><comment><USER95> I wonder if you stalled and wasted time and waffled back and forth like a window shopper if at some point they have to drop you or take a hit to their call performance metrics?

</comment><comment><USER96> An "automated" service that talks for you:

"I want to cancel my service!" "I want to cancel my service!" "I want to cancel my service!"

</comment><comment><USER97> This is common in Canada too. I've learned to cancel services in writing, by fax and registered mail. You save yourself a big headache.

<comment><USER98> Some companies now have online chat services. I've learned the hard way to prefer those and send myself a copy of the chat by email. You can even escalate to a manager using chat now. Specifically referring to Rogers, there's also an Office of the President (which can be hit or miss but will at least answer your question, with a vague or otherwise reply), an ombudsman for Rogers (sometimes helps, sometimes not).

Ultimately the organization that seems to help the most, if you know it exists, is the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. (CCTS), "an independent organization dedicated to working with consumers and service providers to resolve complaints about telephone and internet services."

"The CCTS handles complaints about most telecommunications services provided to individuals and small businesses, including home phone, wireless, Internet, and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services."

More at: [http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1049.htm](http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1049.htm)

Interestingly enough, the CCTS as an industry group is paid based on the # of complaints. So carriers both have an incentive to create better support mechanisms and to never hint that the organization exists. But once you know ... it's a fourth option after the first three tries at contacting a telco.

And this is why we can still survive in Canada with a company that provides what seems like a third of Canada with cable TV, internet, wireless service and home phone ... but hey, at least we don't have to buy all that from Ma Bell like we used to! (If you want to see what AT&T would look like if it weren't split up, just look at the molasses that is Bell Canada... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Canada](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Canada) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Too funny.. "your doing an incredibly good job of making your company seem worse".

I have been through this with Comcast.

</comment><comment><USER100> This exact same thing happened to me with comcast. So glad this is getting publicity omg

</comment><comment><USER101> I am not proud of this but I "canceled" my Comcast service by moving to another country. The only step required was to remove the auto-withdrawal on their website.

They probably tried to contact me and threatened to kill my service for no payments etc but that's a mail problem for the next resident to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER102> Almost seems like you're talking to a robot, don't you think?

</comment><comment><USER45> Do both parties have to agree to a cancellation? Does anyone know?

</comment><comment><USER103> the only correct response to any sort of intrusive question by a customer service representative is "thank you for your time. transfer me to your supervisor"

<comment><USER104> "I don't have a supervisor" is a surprisingly common response.

<comment><USER105> So call their bluff. Unless you're dealing with the support for some small/fly-by-night company, phone support is going to have someone overseeing them. If they absolutely refuse to connect you, hang up and get a new agent and ask to speak to the supervisor from there. Make sure to provide the supervisor with the calling agents details.

<comment><USER106> All of them have a supervisor or superiors of some sort. But in some companies they do not touch the phone, they overseer the process. I can tell you from personal experience that if the customer support doesn't solve the problem then there isn't a next "level" of support called the supervisor, but only more formal options to communicate remain; think complaint department, mail, lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> Can't he do a chargeback on his credit card for the bill and then send the credit card folks a recording of this?

Gyms are typically known for making it extremely hard to cancel, like requiring you to snail mail a notice and even then acting as if they never got it.

<comment><USER108> Chargebacks are no different than simply ceasing to send in payments for a service: It sounds pat, but can haunt you years later when massive penalties and interest appear on your credit report.

<comment><USER109> Source please? Every time I've filed a chargeback on my credit card (American Express), they have been completely transparent with the status of it. When I submit the chargeback, I'm credited the amount of it. If I lose it, I also lose that credit, and I owe the amount of the chargeback.

Are you saying that _comcast_ will negatively affect your credit score because you submit a chargeback to them after they failed to cancel your service?

<comment><USER110> Yes, they'll send you to collections. The collections company will take their word that the debt is valid and try to contact you. Until you pay them, they will report the debt on your credit. If you manage to convince them the debt is invalid, you will still have to separately convince all three credit agencies to remove the listing. Comcast's large bureaucratic collections department will just send you to a different collections agency until you pay up. You can then get a lawyer to stop them, but comcast won't just back down. They'll reply to the lawsuit until a judgement is given. This will cost thousands of dollars to complete.

The other alternative is to play their game with their customer service and get them to agree to properly cancel the service.

<comment><USER70> Is it legal for a company to send your debt to multiple collection agencies?

<comment><USER111> I think nathan meant that the three companies that track your credit score need to be contacted individually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> Proof that Comcast really _does_ care! I'm switching to Comcast.

</comment><comment><USER113> There's a reason he can guarantee competitors can't offer their speed...Corruption.

</comment><comment><USER114> Honestly, I would still take this conversation over a frustrating service call with someone who doesn't understand what I'm saying.

</comment><comment><USER115> Any ideas why he actually wants to cancel? If it's for a lower price surely Comcast would match that? I've done that with mobile operators here in the UK, phoning up to switch to PAYG because of a new deal that comes up then the "retentions" agent offering me the same deal on a contract for half the price.

Edit: My point is although it is none of their business why he wants to cancel, it's probably less effort, and helps them out by saying "The customer service is poor" than declining and arguing with the agent who is just trying to do his job (and probably getting paid $10/hour).

<comment><USER116> Firstly, Comcast has no business why he wants to cancel. He might want to cancel because he landed a tails on a coin flip on a Tuesday, and it shouldn't matter.

Secondly, with such strongly hostile customer service representatives the more you speak that's more ammo you're giving them to argue without cancelling the contract. If you say, 'customer service is poor' there's a high chance that CSR going to pull up records saying that "You called us X times with Y and Z complaints and we have responded to them within 48 hours. That's well within our metrics" or some bs like that.

Talking to hostile CSRs is akin to talking to the cops - don't speak more than you have to.</comment></comment>


Pressure Builds On NBC To Explain Why It's Ruining The Olympics - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-pressure-builds-on-nbc-to-explain-why-its-ruining-the-olympics-2010-2

<comment><USER2> Great point about lack of realtime coverage. Usually my wife and I postpone normal life an enjoy the Olympics 24x7 (almost :-) In the past, the non- realtime coverage would have been awful.

However, since I have less free time right now (consulting and writing a book), recording the material on a DVR and watching it a little later to skip the commercials works very well for us.

It is pain to avoid any news at all so we don't know results as we watch the recordings.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd really love to read this article, but this: <http://i.imgur.com/JYdzS.png> is what I see on my screen. I feel like I have to navigate some sort of maze with my mouse just to get the text :(.</comment>


Democracies with two major parties invariably promote discrimination and brainwashing. - <AUTHOR>

I find it amazing that people, particularly in the US, identify themselves as liberal or conservative.  Why should people agree on a seemingly arbitrary set of issues?
My guess is that they do not, at least initially.  But they do associate themselves with the party on which they agree on the most important issue to them.  Agreement on remaining issues then comes as a compromise.  But I think it becomes worse than that.  After a while, people start agreeing on issues that they would not agree on otherwise.  For example, religious conservatives who identify themselves with the Republican party may not initially agree with the party's policies on the environment.  So this is a form of brainwashing.
But there's also discrimination.  Democracies with two major parties tend to divide their populations into two, thus resulting in unwarranted assumptions and discrimination.
Having said this, there are probably important reasons why many countries end up with only two major parties. <comment><USER2> This is true, and an astute observation. It's also unavoidable - or at least one of the better alternatives.

Everybody has their own ideas of how things _should_ be. In a society of 300 million people, that means 300 million different ideas. There will be some overlap, but obviously they won't _all_ think the same things - then they'd _really_ be brainwashed.

Unfortunately, there's only one way that things actually _are_. So somehow you've got to condense the myriad of different cultures, beliefs and desires into a single reality. Governments have relied on various ways of accomplishing this:

1.) Kill everyone who doesn't agree with the "official" culture. Eg. Rwanda, Bosnia, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, U.S. conquest of Native Americans

2.) Kill the most vocal proponents of alternate viewpoints, enough to terrorize the remaining citizens into keeping with the party line. Eg. modern Russia, several South American governments, apartheid South Africa

3.) Convince the population that eternal damnation awaits anyone who disagrees with the party line. Eg. the Catholic Church

4.) Split the population into many little populations, each of which can have their own reality. Eg. former Yugoslavia, former Soviet Union, American Civil War, Roman Empire. Problem with this is that each sub-state _still_ wants to impose its reality upon its neighbors, so you often get continual warfare until one gobbles up the others.

5.) Convince a majority of the population that they really agree with you. This is the "discrimination and brainwashing" you refer to.

6.) Develop some fundamental principles that everybody agrees on, then agree to disagree on the specifics, knowing that eventually reality will come swing your way. Eg. the Enlightenment theory behind liberty and democracy

#6 seems to be the ideal, but it requires some cognitive dissonance, namely the ability to say "I disagree with what you're doing, but will defend your right to do it." Most people are not capable of this kind of cognitive dissonance - either they slip into "I will not defend your right to do this" and end up with #1 or #2, or they slip into "I agree with what you're doing" and end up with #5.

So #5 is the most stable system that a large civilization can enter. Most Western democracies actually function as a combination of #5 and #6, with the masses adjusting their beliefs to fit their leaders and the leaders themselves agreeing to disagree under fundamental principles. U.S. democracy is currently in danger because a disturbing number of "leaders" (on both sides) are suggesting #1 or #3, but the political party system is meant to encourage #6.

Incidentally, the same problem happens with multi-party governments. Most multi-party systems are actually run by coalitions, where a bunch of parties get together and say "Okay, I don't totally agree with all of your viewpoints, but for the sake of getting things done I'll let you do things your way."

</comment><comment><USER3> There are at least two separate questions here: 1) why does the US have only two major parties; and 2) given such, why do people often pick one and stick with it for all issues?

The first has been studied to death. It has to do with more with how the US government is set up and less with the psychology of its people. There are other countries with different setups that are not two-party dominant. One viable way out of such dominance is some form of party-list proportional representation (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party- list_proportional_represe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party- list_proportional_representation)) .

The second is all about psychology, it most certainly has several components at play. I posit the most prevalent are attitudes of commitment given the initial choice of party and some form of path of least resistance.

The former is common in psychology. It is a natural instinct to think your group is better as soon as you join it, for whatever reason, even an arbitrary one. This even happens in psychology experiments when groups are assigned randomly.

The latter reason is simply most people don't research any issues nor do they want to. They go with perhaps the simplest method to decide, which is listen to what the group told me before. There is some real trade-off here. To be fully informed is perhaps impossible. You need some sort of proxy for most policy issues. Blindly following one of two major parties (on the other extreme) is probably not the answer either of course.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would like to introduce to this thread a book that recently came out called Myth of the Rational Voter. Byran Caplan argues that voters on the whole make irrational decisions and even lists 4 specific "biases" that voters suffer from.

Here's a podcast that explains the book: [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/06/caplan_on_the_m.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/06/caplan_on_the_m.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Institutions, unlike people, can be truly idealistic. No NRA member is 100 percent devoted to guns. The NRA itself, however, is 100 percent so devoted. This same thing is possible with political parties. For instance, the "Nationalists" or "Communists" or "Fascists" or "Libertarians" can be counted on (to a large degree) to adhere to their platform.

In parlimentary systems, ideological parties, like the above, can get represented, and often make up the shaky coalition goverments that hold power. With the right kind of backstabbing, Nazis or Bolzhevics can wipe out their allies from within and seize control. Just not possible in the US...

In the US's winner-take-all system, the parties themselves must compromise on their plaform, and generally aim for about 50.1 percent of the vote--they'd rather 60 percent of gun-lovers than 100 percent, because the latter is unpalatable to the rest of their members. _Therefore the crazy fringe of every issue is alienated._ The GOP and Democrats are _not_ really restricted to a given platform. This is why "GOP success" can _never_ amount to a Fascist takeover, and why "Democrat success" can never amount to a Communist takeover.

 __ __ __ __ __ __* Suggestion:

When the admins see something as "off topic", perhaps they should enable a down arrow for that post only, allowing everyone else to decide for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER6> Your observation would work better on your personal blog than as a story on "Hacker News".

<comment><USER7> Whether or not this is the appropriate forum for this particular post, it's high time that hackers became politically aware. Existing power structures are set on criminalizing possession and usage of information in order to enforce artificial scarcity to maintain profits: Germany just passed a law declaring "hacker tools" illegal; the RIAA is now arguing that "making files available", even without copying, is infringement; there are provisions of the DMCA that make decrypting information you have legal access to _illegal_ (DeCSS); Comcast is stopping BitTorrent transfers; patents threaten everyone; even your home Internet connection is severely throttled upstream to make you more of a consumer. The list could go on and on (Skype and new Federal eavesdropping-on- citizens-without-warrants "laws"; possible capital gains/income tax on virtual goods you've never sold; suing entire college student bodies at once in a fishing expedition for mp3 trading, etc., etc.)

There is an enormous amount of money to be made in the near term by plutocratic information restriction. Unfortunately the severe clampdowns threaten to change the model from wealth _creation_ to wealth _stagnation_ , and everyone loses as money transfer moves closer to zero-sum.

 _"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."_ \-- Bill Gates

<comment><USER2> That's true, but unfortunately the type of "political awareness" that arises out of social news sites seems to be guys sitting around on their computers and complaining about it. That doesn't help anything; it just pisses off ordinary people who complain that "these tech folks are so _negative_ ".

IMHO, Google's got the right idea. Become wealthy and powerful, and then you're in a position to lobby the government to change things. Unfortunately many people just sit back and complain about what Google's doing too...

<comment><USER7> Nonviolent noncooperation FTW. "Evil" schemes can't be implemented without programmers to do the work. Simply by being aware and choosing to work on something else -- GNU, Linux, your start-up, defeating DRM, anything open source -- you help swing the balance back in favor of everyone else.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How would you beat the averages if they all use FP now? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Is functional programming really mainstream now? I think knowledge of its existence is mainstream, but interest in it still is not. Most people give me strange looks when I tell them my current programming language of choice is a Lisp dialect.

</comment><comment><USER3> Who is they? Why do we want to beat them? What is FP? Who upvoted this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Lot of questions....

It's about this old article, that Lisp is a secret weapon: <http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html>. Now that Lisp and FP (functional programming) features are becoming mainstream, it's not a secret weapon anymore.</comment></comment>


GMO Alarmist Nassim Taleb Backs Out of Debate. I Refute Him Anyway - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/19/gmo-alarmist-nassim-taleb-backs-out-of-d <comment><USER2> Taleb probably looked into Bailey's earlier background, in particular his books _Ecoscam_ and " _The True State of the Planet_ , and his CEI connections came to the conclusion that at the time he was clearly ideology-driven, if not perhaps a bit of kook (I'm not saying that's what he is -- but his language at the time was quite strident, and one can't be blamed for coming away from this impression).

He definitely seems to have sobered up a bit over the years (he's taken up a much more reasonable stance on global warming, for example), but I don't blame Taleb for applying the "cautionary principle" and walking a way from a situation that he suspected might have been something of a theatrical ambush (by being asked to debate someone who was perhaps rhetorically very well skilled, but somehow also caught up in a web of ideological, pseudo-rational thinking).

</comment><comment><USER3> the author of this article argues in favor of GMO on the basis of certain short term material benefits provided by them. he does not refute anything that I imagine Taleb might have conceivably presented as an argument in favor of his version of an anti-GMO stance based on the precautionary principle.

this gives me the impression the author of this piece has not read or has not understood Taleb's style of argumentation and general philosophy with respect to black swan events, risk evaluation, and fragility/anti-fragility.

if I might be permitted, briefly, to act as a surrogate for Taleb in this case I will try to present my interpretation of a Talebian argument against GMOs. this is not necessarily my position but I believe it is the argument the original author _should_ have addressed.

Taleb would note that unintended consequences can have outsize impact on the world in ways that are not easy to anticipate and that our statistical and inferential models generally fail to account for due to the limitations of the underlying mathematics and the philosophy by which those models are interpreted.

In his working paper Taleb refers to several possible "black swan" risks that could have catastrophic consequences if they do occur, and under Taleb's method of evaluating risk we must account for the fact that anything that is possible will eventually occur, so even low probability events must be accounted for if they have enormous impact when they do occur. It only needs to occur once, after all.

The outsize risks Taleb discusses in his paper are the following: catastrophic ecological damage due to GMO vulnerability to specific pathogens, catastrophic ecological damage due to transgenic transfer of accidentally deleterious sequences to other species in the environment, catastrophic ecological damage due to unforeseen consequences that simply cannot be anticipated through rational, inferential models.

Note that his primary concern is that GMO crops present a potential risk of catastrophic ecological damage. That is the agricultural equivalent of global nuclear war. It is an unacceptable outcome under any circumstances and it cannot be recovered from if it does occur.

This is the basis of Taleb's criticism. He seems to be willing to forego the short term economic upside of using GMO crops as a price of avoiding the catastrophe scenario. The author of the reason.com piece slurs Taleb and calls him an "alarmist" but I don't think that is a fair or accurate characterization. Taleb is simply doing risk assessment in the way he knows how. Perhaps the rest of us should be alarmed that we remain naive and ignorant about how to perform risk assessment around events with potentially catastrophic outcomes. We seem to be especially prone to avoiding this type of risk assessment when it concludes that we SHOULD NOT seek short term material gain. And yet, that is what Taleb's method advises in this case and he is once again receiving a lot of pushback because of it.

<comment><USER2> Exactly. Not only does Bailey not address Taleb's systemic arguments; I'm not sure he understand them, really.</comment></comment>