When it says free install, the installation of the equipment and that first outlet is usually covered by that. But when it comes to additional outlets or wanting work done a certain way, such as fishing the line through a wall, there are charges that come into play there.

Installing a modem and setting up the first PC is usually covered in the install if its free, want additional computers/laptops/tablets added, that's going to be extra if you want the technician to do it.

I work as a technician, there are many times I go out and the customer should have the initial part free and if it is not, I can get that fixed by calling dispatch. Any additional work though that is NOT on the order, or is, costs. We are given units per job. Adding more units is only done by adding other services to be installed. And that is the case most times. They don't tell the CSR they have 3 TV's, the expect those two to be free as well. And I hear it quite often when I explain the charges that they think the additional boxes are supposed to be free "that's what they told me on the phone." Never never never. There is always going to be fees, and all calls are recorded so they can go and review that conversation.

But I can tell you this, she has earned herself a do not service mark. While cable companies must provide service to people within the footprint, if something like this happens, they get blackballed.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 19:36:

Quboid wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 17:57:

garrywong wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 17:52:

SlimRam wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 16:15:
So, they actually hack into her ex husband's Facebook account, and his old myspace account

WTF? How is that even legal?

It's not and there's approximately zero chance that this happened. I presume this wasn't meant literally.

Of course it's legal if you have a warrant.

Then they go to Facebook and demand the data, they don't hack the system.

Quboid wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 17:57:

garrywong wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 17:52:

SlimRam wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 16:15:
So, they actually hack into her ex husband's Facebook account, and his old myspace account

WTF? How is that even legal?

It's not and there's approximately zero chance that this happened. I presume this wasn't meant literally.

Of course it's legal if you have a warrant.

garrywong wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 17:52:

SlimRam wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 16:15:
So, they actually hack into her ex husband's Facebook account, and his old myspace account

WTF? How is that even legal?

She asked the detective again what's the hold up, they said its Facebook. Even though the police department has spoke to them directly, they still haven't taken action against him.

What did they expect? Has the guy been tried? Has he been found guilty by a court and given a restraining order? And why exactly is Facebook obliged to block this guy? It's the local authoritie's responsibility to enforce any restraining orders. If a judge rules that Facebook must block him, fine, but before then why are you expecting Facebook to just jump and dance to the pipe?

Well, I wasn't actually sitting there listening to the conversation and recording it but as it was told to me: during the first interview with the detective over the phone they first ask my friend if they could go into her Facebook account to see what kind of stuff he had been saying towards her, and she said yes so they did. next, they told my friend that she would have to go down to a courthouse and get a restraining order out against him, which she did. After that, I guess the detective went through her facebook and saw the kind of shit that he had been posting for years and the extreme nature of some of it as in, cute things like I'm going to burn your house down, I know where you live, I'm going to buy an AK 47 shoot you. apparently, this was enough for the detective to go to a judge and get a warrant to search his Facebook account and all his online activities leading back to her. ultimately, the detective actually told her that they can, with a warrant, go into their house and take their computer. I say this because the guy is remarried and the biggest problem apparently The detectives are having right now, the way I understand it, is the fact that they can't determine if it was him or his wife doing the stuff on the computer there's honestly no way to prove it? The detective had to trace all the accounts that the ex husband had been using and they all went back to the same ISP and from there they traced it back to his home address. The way I understand it, the first step was going to be to get facebook to shut down his account or block it. Ultimately, the police department was going to have to talk to his ISP server and tell them to stop all Internet access from their home, I guess they can actually do this? I don't know if the ISP has done their part, but from what I understand Facebook has not done their part. That's kind of where it stands right now other than that I don't know.

garrywong wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 17:52:

SlimRam wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 16:15:
So, they actually hack into her ex husband's Facebook account, and his old myspace account

WTF? How is that even legal?

It's not and there's approximately zero chance that this happened. I presume this wasn't meant literally.

SlimRam wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 16:15:
So, they actually hack into her ex husband's Facebook account, and his old myspace account

WTF? How is that even legal?

She asked the detective again what's the hold up, they said its Facebook. Even though the police department has spoke to them directly, they still haven't taken action against him.

What did they expect? Has the guy been tried? Has he been found guilty by a court and given a restraining order? And why exactly is Facebook obliged to block this guy? It's the local authoritie's responsibility to enforce any restraining orders. If a judge rules that Facebook must block him, fine, but before then why are you expecting Facebook to just jump and dance to the pipe?

jdreyer wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 15:47:
Leave it to Slimram to make me spit up my coffee.

Hehehe, I'm sorry...no I'm not

Creston wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 16:07:
I'm actually more surprised why they allowed apparently pornographic pictures on their site, but then again, it IS FB. They'd happily show live beheadings of children if they thought it'd make them a buck.

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Jivaro wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 15:27:
There is a small part of me that feels like she is due some compensation. If she reports it in early December and they don't do anything about it for 2 months....wtf is that?

It's a small part...but I can sorta see her angle. That doesn't mean I think she will win or should win, but I can't blame her for trying.

The problem is most likely Facebook. They are very slow to do anything against another person on there. I have a friend that has been stalked on the internet for over 10 years now, from her ex husband. Well, last month she got tired of it and finally called the police department to see if there was anything that can be done about it. In my state, Arizona, they actually take cyber stalking and cyber bullying threats seriously. Seriously enough that they actually have a cyber department of detectives in the Phoenix Police Department. So, they actually hack into her ex husband's Facebook account, and his old myspace account, and they got a warrant to search his email also. After going through all of this, they actually call her back and tell her that he's really been stalking her and harassing her for over 12 years now and has even made a few death threats to other people about her. So my friend asks the detectives what's the next step in prosecuting this guy? They tell her that he has multiple fake accounts and that they're going to try to IP block all of them by dealing with Facebook. Well, this was a few weeks ago, and so far nothing has been blocked. She asked the detective again what's the hold up, they said its Facebook. Even though the police department has spoke to them directly, they still haven't taken action against him.

So, I suppose the only way to really get things rolling with Facebook is to threaten a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

Jivaro wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 15:27:
There is a small part of me that feels like she is due some compensation. If she reports it in early December and they don't do anything about it for 2 months....wtf is that?

It's a small part...but I can sorta see her angle. That doesn't mean I think she will win or should win, but I can't blame her for trying.

I think it's because of reports that the pictures only looked like her, and weren't actually OF her. Now FB is suddenly being asked to make a determination "is this you, yes or no?"

I'm actually more surprised why they allowed apparently pornographic pictures on their site, but then again, it IS FB. They'd happily show live beheadings of children if they thought it'd make them a buck.

@ HoSpanky,

Yeah, that's not cool.

Although, it's well known that Comcast sales pulls the bait and switch with the "free installation" all the time. Not the technician's fault though, unless he failed up front to inform her, that if he does this or that, she'll be charged. My local telecom out here came out recently. I asked him could he do this or that? And he plainly said, this is covered, but this will be a charge. If the tech just went ahead and did it, then charged her, I could see her frustration. Still, stealing tools and pulling a gun is beyond the pale. Orange is the new black, baby.

Leave it to Slimram to make me spit up my coffee.

There is a small part of me that feels like she is due some compensation. If she reports it in early December and they don't do anything about it for 2 months....wtf is that?

It's a small part...but I can sorta see her angle. That doesn't mean I think she will win or should win, but I can't blame her for trying.

HoSpanky wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 13:32:

...No, I don't work for Comcast, btw.

*Puts gun away* Good, good. Just see that you keep it that way...

Seriously though I understand people being frustrated with Comcast, but first off, wrong guy. Those guys have little they can do about their policies, and they'll get chewed out by their bosses and/or fired if they don't follow policy. Secondly, the lady is just bat-shit crazy, you take someone's tools and then threaten them with a gun when you're trying to get them back. Real rational.

If she gets 10c because I have a Facebook account, does that mean I get to see the pictures? Seems fair to me.

I would have sympathy for someone in her position if she had, by all appearances, used it to frivolously aim for a pay day. I can understand suing the ex-boyfriend but unless that article is missing some crucial details, Facebook was only guilty of not taking orders from random people.

The Comcast article is infuriating.

The "surprise" install charge is likely due to the customer wanting new lines, and "I don't want wires on the outside of my house". Well, around the outside is commonly the easiest way. You want somehing done the hard way, it stops being free. People hear "free installation" and think their entire house is getting rewired, inside the walls, or whatever other stupid ideas they have, and they won't get billed for it. I routinely get customers who want Ethernet lines run everywhere for computers and game systems, and they don't understand why that isn't free with their modem installation.

Stealing his tools was bad enough, but threatening someone's LIFE over cable tv? Insanity. I don't believe for a second that she pointed the gun in the air, no one does that. I have no idea how she thought that would go well for her, if she was even thinking at all.

No, I don't work for Comcast, btw.

Anyone that has a chance to take money from a social media site (considering how much meta data they bilk from the morons that use the shit) I am all for it.

She isn't going to win shit, and shouldn't. The article doesn't mention if she got a lawyer to order Facebook to take those pictures down, but even then, since they're not actually pictures of her, just pictures made to look like her, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Otherwise everyone could just order whatever picture they feel like taken down.

Once the police got involved, Facebook took down the pictures as requested. This is a bullshit lawsuit. 10 cents for each of Facebook 1.23 bn (HOLY SHIT!) users. What the fuck ever.

Facebook should provide the hits against that particular page, and pay her 10 cents per hit. I'm sure she'll be very happy with the $8.40 she'd make from that.

• Woman files $123M suit against Facebook over photoshopped nude photos

"These phony photos falsely and maliciously depicted plaintiff in a clearly derogatory and false light ... as some overly bold and overly aggressive sexual person, which plaintiff in fact and truth is not," writes Ali's lawyer.

She goes on to explain that the pictures are obviously fake because she has no recollection of ever using a midget, a Great Dane, 25 feet of rope, the axle grease, a pulley, and a jar of peanut butter in any sex act, atleast not at the same time, as the picture clearly portrays.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Jul 31, 2014, 09:07:

Woman files $123M suit against Facebook over photoshopped nude photos.

Hope she wins that and more in a civil suit.

First let me say I can't stand Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus or any of that so called, social, crap. I could easily rant on about that inordinately.

Still even I, who wouldn't give a fart if all those things died horribly, think her managing to successfully sue for this (what she wants for the reasons stated) is insane and completely stupid.

I would love to see Facebook and friends tumble like a house of cards on the highway but this lawsuit is just absurd.