Friday, October 05, 2012
Thursday, October 04, 2012
NY DWI Repeat Offenders: New DMV Rules in 2012
In my previous post I covered the phony emergency and bureaucratic end run in the new NY DMV DWI rules.
Now let's get into the meat of the new rules, all of which can be seen on the DMV Proposed Rules page (for now).
I'll start with the one that will affect the most people.
DMV rule 134.10(b) covers the process of getting your full license back after completing a rehabilitation program, commonly referred to as the DDP (Drinking Driver Program (pdf)). The amended language excludes you if you have:
Anyone who's had any kind of DWI case in the past 25 years (and going forward) may face this problem. Most people in this situation will have a conditional license that lets them do most of the driving they need, but it will create significant problems for some.
We don't know the precise numbers in NY, but you might be surprised how many people have something on their record. According to a Minnesota DPS report (pdf, page 22), over 10% of their drivers have one. I've seen other numbers putting it as high as one in seven. If you live on a street with 20 houses averaging 2 drivers per home, then on average you've got about 5 neighbors who have a DWI history.
Part of the problem with the new rules are the broad definitions relating to "dangerous" drivers. Second 132.1(a):
The definition also includes 1192-a - the Zero Tolerance Law which is for a BAC as low as 0.02 for a young driver. Do we really want to punish people in their 40s for driving after one beer in their late teens?
And the definition includes "finding of refusal to submit to a chemical test." These findings are made with nowhere near the procedural protections one gets in a criminal case. The "hearing" is held in a tiny room in a DMV office. There is no jury. The decision is made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). He (usually male) is an employee of the DMV, not like a judge in the court system. There is no discovery - zip, zero, nada, none. Your right to cross-examine the police officer is limited by the whim of the ALJ. Some of the ALJs are fair. Some aren't. If you can't afford a lawyer you don't get a public defender. You do have the right to an attorney, but many people don't know what their rights are. In a criminal proceeding the judge is required to instruct you about your rights. Most people don't even go to the hearing, and they lose even when they're innocent.
There's more in the definitions, but what matters here is how this impacts people. The new regulation under Section 132.2 calls for a "lifetime record review" of anyone convicted of a "high-point driving violation," which is defined as any violation of five or more points, such as passing a stopped school bus, reckless driving, and speeding more than 20 mph over the limit. If the review shows enough relevant convictions or incidents in the driver's lifetime, or a different threshold in the past 25 years, then their license will be revoked. And they might never get it back.
Here's the extreme situation. Ralph had a bad run in his teens and 20s. He had a zero tolerance violation at 19. He had four more convictions or incidents in his 20s. He served his time, paid his debt to society, etc.
Fifty years later Ralph is driving south on the Northway and doesn't notice the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55 mph. He gets a ticket for 76 in a 55. Ralph mails in a plea of guilty and pays the fine. The lifetime record review ensues. Because of the five convictions/incidents from fifty years ago, Ralph's license is revoked.
But wait ... there's more. Ralph applies to have his license reinstated after the revocation period is up. New regulation 136.5(b)(1) requires states: "the Commissioner shall deny the application." Ralph just lost his license permanently because of a recent 76 in a 65 and his bad behavior that happened fifty years ago.
Really what's happening is Ralph is being punished again for what happened long ago. That's not what the Courts will say. They'll say this isn't punishment. It's not a penalty at all, just an administrative remedy.
If the individual doesn't have five incidents in his lifetime, he can still get hit if he has three convictions or incidents in the past 25 years, plus one or more serious driving offenses. The definition of "serious driving offense" is also troubling:
A "driving related Penal Law conviction" is vague. Does that include a marijuana violation resulting from a traffic stop? Or a shoplifting arrest that occurs after you started driving away from the store? What if you drive away from the gas station without paying for the gas? This may not be a big concern because it's not clear if the DMV's system tracks such convictions.
Then we have "conviction of two more more high-point driving violations." So if you had two of the 76/55 speeds in the past 25 years, you're on the hook. Or with the last category, you could get one ticket every four years for 66 in a 55 (11 mph over). Each counts for four points. You'd have 20 points in 20 years.
So, like Ralph's situation, 22 years ago you had a bad run. You got a couple DWAIs and a DWI. As a part of that you also got a couple speeding tickets or other point-bearing violations. Then you had a couple of low speeds 15 years ago. Now you get your 76/55, the record review, and you're revoked. Under 136.5(b)(2), your application for reinstatement will be denied - permanently. Again, the individual is being punished not for the 76 in a 55, but for the long ago conduct.
There's more in these rules, including situations where an ignition interlock device would be required for someone who is getting their license back. That's complicated and we've covered quite a bit here already.
This is all very new, and I may have missed something. I certainly appreciate any comments, suggestions or corrections.
Now let's get into the meat of the new rules, all of which can be seen on the DMV Proposed Rules page (for now).
Update: A number of people have called me asking what they can do about their situation. A friend of mine, Eric Sills, is working on challenging the new regulations. His office phone is 518-456-6456.
DMV rule 134.10(b) covers the process of getting your full license back after completing a rehabilitation program, commonly referred to as the DDP (Drinking Driver Program (pdf)). The amended language excludes you if you have:
two or more alcohol or drug-related driving convictions or incidents within 25 years from the date of enrollment in the program.Here's an extreme scenario: In 1996 when you were 20 years old, you were arrested with a blood-alcohol content of 0.02 and convicted of VTL 1192-a - the Zero Tolerance Law. In 2020 you're arrested for a DWI with a 0.06 BAC (I've seen it happen). Not knowing any better, you plead guilty to the DWI and your license is revoked. When you go to get your license restored, DMV refuses because of that 24-year-old zero tolerance conviction.
Anyone who's had any kind of DWI case in the past 25 years (and going forward) may face this problem. Most people in this situation will have a conditional license that lets them do most of the driving they need, but it will create significant problems for some.
We don't know the precise numbers in NY, but you might be surprised how many people have something on their record. According to a Minnesota DPS report (pdf, page 22), over 10% of their drivers have one. I've seen other numbers putting it as high as one in seven. If you live on a street with 20 houses averaging 2 drivers per home, then on average you've got about 5 neighbors who have a DWI history.
Part of the problem with the new rules are the broad definitions relating to "dangerous" drivers. Second 132.1(a):
Alcohol- or drug-related driving conviction or incident means a conviction of a violation of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a finding of a violation of section 1192-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, a conviction of an offense under the Penal Law for which a violation of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is an essential element, or a finding of refusal to submit to a chemical test under section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, not arising out of the same incident.This includes anything under Section 1192. That's not shocking, but it includes the non-criminal DWAI offense under 1192(1), which is generally cases with BAC under 0.08, and widely perceived as far less serious than Aggravated DWI 1192(2-a) with BAC of 0.18 or higher. Treating these two offenses as the same is questionable.
The definition also includes 1192-a - the Zero Tolerance Law which is for a BAC as low as 0.02 for a young driver. Do we really want to punish people in their 40s for driving after one beer in their late teens?
And the definition includes "finding of refusal to submit to a chemical test." These findings are made with nowhere near the procedural protections one gets in a criminal case. The "hearing" is held in a tiny room in a DMV office. There is no jury. The decision is made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). He (usually male) is an employee of the DMV, not like a judge in the court system. There is no discovery - zip, zero, nada, none. Your right to cross-examine the police officer is limited by the whim of the ALJ. Some of the ALJs are fair. Some aren't. If you can't afford a lawyer you don't get a public defender. You do have the right to an attorney, but many people don't know what their rights are. In a criminal proceeding the judge is required to instruct you about your rights. Most people don't even go to the hearing, and they lose even when they're innocent.
There's more in the definitions, but what matters here is how this impacts people. The new regulation under Section 132.2 calls for a "lifetime record review" of anyone convicted of a "high-point driving violation," which is defined as any violation of five or more points, such as passing a stopped school bus, reckless driving, and speeding more than 20 mph over the limit. If the review shows enough relevant convictions or incidents in the driver's lifetime, or a different threshold in the past 25 years, then their license will be revoked. And they might never get it back.
Here's the extreme situation. Ralph had a bad run in his teens and 20s. He had a zero tolerance violation at 19. He had four more convictions or incidents in his 20s. He served his time, paid his debt to society, etc.
Fifty years later Ralph is driving south on the Northway and doesn't notice the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55 mph. He gets a ticket for 76 in a 55. Ralph mails in a plea of guilty and pays the fine. The lifetime record review ensues. Because of the five convictions/incidents from fifty years ago, Ralph's license is revoked.
But wait ... there's more. Ralph applies to have his license reinstated after the revocation period is up. New regulation 136.5(b)(1) requires states: "the Commissioner shall deny the application." Ralph just lost his license permanently because of a recent 76 in a 65 and his bad behavior that happened fifty years ago.
Really what's happening is Ralph is being punished again for what happened long ago. That's not what the Courts will say. They'll say this isn't punishment. It's not a penalty at all, just an administrative remedy.
If the individual doesn't have five incidents in his lifetime, he can still get hit if he has three convictions or incidents in the past 25 years, plus one or more serious driving offenses. The definition of "serious driving offense" is also troubling:
Serious driving offense means (i) a fatal accident; (ii) a driving-related Penal Law conviction; (iii) conviction of two or more high-point driving violations, other than the violation that forms the basis for the record review under Section 132.2 of this Part; or (iv) 20 or more points from any violations, other than the violation that forms the basis for the record review under Section 132.2 of this Part.The fatal accident one sounds serious, but it doesn't say it has to be the driver's fault. And one can have a fatal accident arising out of a minor driving offense.
A "driving related Penal Law conviction" is vague. Does that include a marijuana violation resulting from a traffic stop? Or a shoplifting arrest that occurs after you started driving away from the store? What if you drive away from the gas station without paying for the gas? This may not be a big concern because it's not clear if the DMV's system tracks such convictions.
Then we have "conviction of two more more high-point driving violations." So if you had two of the 76/55 speeds in the past 25 years, you're on the hook. Or with the last category, you could get one ticket every four years for 66 in a 55 (11 mph over). Each counts for four points. You'd have 20 points in 20 years.
So, like Ralph's situation, 22 years ago you had a bad run. You got a couple DWAIs and a DWI. As a part of that you also got a couple speeding tickets or other point-bearing violations. Then you had a couple of low speeds 15 years ago. Now you get your 76/55, the record review, and you're revoked. Under 136.5(b)(2), your application for reinstatement will be denied - permanently. Again, the individual is being punished not for the 76 in a 55, but for the long ago conduct.
There's more in these rules, including situations where an ignition interlock device would be required for someone who is getting their license back. That's complicated and we've covered quite a bit here already.
This is all very new, and I may have missed something. I certainly appreciate any comments, suggestions or corrections.
New DMV Rules for Repeat DWI: A Phony Emergency
The New York DMV has issued a new set of proposed rules affecting repeat DWI cases. This received a brief splash of coverage in the media, such as Casey Seiler's article in the Times Union. This has an impact on anyone convicted of a DWI offense who has a prior offense within the past 25 years.*
DMV describes this as about "Dangerous Repeat Alcohol or Drug Offenders" on the DMV's Proposed Rules page, with the following note:
The emergency designation puts the rule into effect immediately, before public comment. The idea is that something has happened (an emergency) that makes this urgent and something that must be done.
What's the emergency? New York State was one of the first to make drunk driving illegal, back in 1910 (per Wikipedia on history of drunk driving laws). The legislature has made changes to the law over the years, such as adding Aggravated DWI back in 2006, and the new ignition interlock law in 2010. The laws already address repeat offenders in a variety of ways.
Here's a common definition of emergency:
The regulatory approach is also an end run around the legislative process. DMV is making new and substantial rules affecting people accused of drunk driving offenses. This is really the legislature's job, and something they have not hesitated to do in the past.
For example, Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1196 sets rules regarding the Drinking Driver Program (which includes eligibility for a conditional license) and subsection 4 bars repeat offenders if their prior offense was within five years. VTL 1193 makes an offense a felony if there is a prior offense within ten years.
If there is a need for further rules regarding repeat offenders, the legislature has demonstrated a willingness to do something about it. The proper path in a representative democracy is for our elected representatives to make such rules through the legislative process. Instead the DMV decided to skip that and create its own rules.
One real consequence of this is that it blindsides people dealing with DWI cases right now because it is retroactive. An attorney friend contacted me about a case where he already negotiated a plea agreement in early September. His client will now be affected by a rule that did not exist when he committed his offense. Thanks to the "emergency" trick, they did not have notice of the rule when he made his plea deal. If this were done through the legislative process or at least not used the phony emergency designation there would have been some public notice of what was going on.
In my next post I'll provide a detailed analysis of the changes in the new rules.
*One of the proposed rules amends Regulation 134.10(b) to prohibit those with 2 convictions within the past 25 years from early termination of suspension/revocation after completion of the Drinking Driver Program.
Update: A number of people have called me asking what they can do about their situation. A friend of mine, Eric Sills, is working on challenging the new regulations. His office phone is 518-456-6456.So far we have yet to see a thorough analysis of the proposal, or discussion of the DMV's decision to impose the rules before public comment as an "emergency." In this post I discuss the phony emergency and abuse of the regulatory process. In the next I'll discuss the details of the rules. --Update - link is here: NY DWI Repeat Offender New DMV Rules --
DMV describes this as about "Dangerous Repeat Alcohol or Drug Offenders" on the DMV's Proposed Rules page, with the following note:
Emergency Rule
Effective September 25, 2012
Comments accepted until
November 26, 2012
 |
| DMV Commissioner Fiala |
What's the emergency? New York State was one of the first to make drunk driving illegal, back in 1910 (per Wikipedia on history of drunk driving laws). The legislature has made changes to the law over the years, such as adding Aggravated DWI back in 2006, and the new ignition interlock law in 2010. The laws already address repeat offenders in a variety of ways.
Here's a common definition of emergency:
A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.The repeat DWI problem may be serious and dangerous, but the "unexpected" is missing. There is no emergency. There is no need for immediate action either. Using the emergency approach is an end run around the normal regulatory process.
The regulatory approach is also an end run around the legislative process. DMV is making new and substantial rules affecting people accused of drunk driving offenses. This is really the legislature's job, and something they have not hesitated to do in the past.
For example, Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1196 sets rules regarding the Drinking Driver Program (which includes eligibility for a conditional license) and subsection 4 bars repeat offenders if their prior offense was within five years. VTL 1193 makes an offense a felony if there is a prior offense within ten years.
If there is a need for further rules regarding repeat offenders, the legislature has demonstrated a willingness to do something about it. The proper path in a representative democracy is for our elected representatives to make such rules through the legislative process. Instead the DMV decided to skip that and create its own rules.
One real consequence of this is that it blindsides people dealing with DWI cases right now because it is retroactive. An attorney friend contacted me about a case where he already negotiated a plea agreement in early September. His client will now be affected by a rule that did not exist when he committed his offense. Thanks to the "emergency" trick, they did not have notice of the rule when he made his plea deal. If this were done through the legislative process or at least not used the phony emergency designation there would have been some public notice of what was going on.
In my next post I'll provide a detailed analysis of the changes in the new rules.
*One of the proposed rules amends Regulation 134.10(b) to prohibit those with 2 convictions within the past 25 years from early termination of suspension/revocation after completion of the Drinking Driver Program.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
DirecTV Customer Service and NFL Sunday Ticket
I had an angry experience with DirecTV this morning. Before I get into the details I have to say in retrospect that by comparison to other experiences I've had (such as Time Warner Cable Phone Support), they did pretty good. But only by comparison.
How did this start? This summer after problems with Hotwire Communications TV service in Boca Raton, we decided to keep using DirecTV and reviewed our plan. We canceled most of the pay channels, except HBO, and decided we were not going to watch enough football to justify the cost of NFL Sunday Ticket, a package that allows you see just about every NFL game.
That summer phone call with DirecTV seemed to go well. Today I realized it hadn't gone as well as I'd thought. While we did receive a credit back for our first payment on the NFL Sunday Ticket package, they continued to bill us for it the next two months and that would have continued.
Our Discover Card was somehow compromised a few weeks ago. Thanks to Discover and/or Walmart, this was caught quickly and we got a new card. This prompted a payment problem with DirecTV, which we had been paying with that Discover Card. In the course of changing the payment I reviewed the bill online and noticed that we were still paying for Sunday Ticket.
The first problem with the experience today was that DirecTV would not allow me to review bills or statements online. In order to do that I had to sign up for paperless billing. There was no option to continue paper billing and still review bills and statements online. In other words, DirecTV is forcing customers into paperless billing. Personally, I don't mind this but it doesn't seem right.
Next, once I was in I wanted to cancel the NFL Sunday Ticket via the online interface. Nope.
Notice the little box that popped up in the bottom right. It did not allow me to remove NFL Sunday Ticket online. Why not? The obvious reason is that they want to make it harder to cancel services. I'm pretty sure they make it easy to sign up for a new service. It's only when you want to cut your bill that they make it hard.
The other problem with this moment is that it tells the users to "call customer service at 1-800-DirecTV." I did. First I got a computer with a fake human voice. Sorry, I hate that. I press Zero to get a real human. No dice. The computer/human voice tells me that in order to get me to the right person, to please say what this is about. So I say "Cancel Sunday Ticket". It/she says "I can help you with that." No, no you can't. And that shows a disregard for my desire to talk to a real human, which you just acknowledged.
I press Zero again. So now I get transferred to a real person. Of course, it's not the right person. She asks me how I'm doing. "Not happy." She asks me or my name and phone number for security. Fine.
Then, after a brief conversation, she says she's going to transfer me to NFL Sunday Ticket department. Really? Why did I go through all of this only to get to the wrong person?
Back up a few paragraphs and look at that picture again. Why did DirecTV give me the general customer service phone number? Why not give me the direct number to the NFL Sunday Ticket department?
The guy I spoke with last did get it taken care of, or at least he told me he did. I'd check right not to be sure but I'm unable to login to my account (might be due to the firewall where I am right now rather than DirecTV). Of course, the person I spoke with in the summer told me it was taken care of.
It turns out that there was a credit on our account for the first NFL Sunday Ticket payment back in July, but they continued to charge us in August and September. How many other people did this happen to? I suggested to the last guy that he forward this concern to his manager to see how many other people have the same problem. He left me with the strong impression he didn't care.
So why am I angry? Because if I hadn't noticed this would have cost me at least $200. This should have been taken care of back in the summer. DirecTV shouldn't engage in practices that make it hard for customers to check on things online, and should not force feed paperless billing on people. And if you're going to insist that I call to get something resolved, give me the direct phone number instead of making me talk to a computer.
As I mentioned, this was still much better than my Time Warner Cable experience or my previous fiasco with HP Customer Service. While it was frustrating to have to jump through all the hoops, once I called the number it took about 7 minutes to get to the right person. That's dramatically better than what I went through with the others. But it's still not good enough.
How did this start? This summer after problems with Hotwire Communications TV service in Boca Raton, we decided to keep using DirecTV and reviewed our plan. We canceled most of the pay channels, except HBO, and decided we were not going to watch enough football to justify the cost of NFL Sunday Ticket, a package that allows you see just about every NFL game.
That summer phone call with DirecTV seemed to go well. Today I realized it hadn't gone as well as I'd thought. While we did receive a credit back for our first payment on the NFL Sunday Ticket package, they continued to bill us for it the next two months and that would have continued.
Our Discover Card was somehow compromised a few weeks ago. Thanks to Discover and/or Walmart, this was caught quickly and we got a new card. This prompted a payment problem with DirecTV, which we had been paying with that Discover Card. In the course of changing the payment I reviewed the bill online and noticed that we were still paying for Sunday Ticket.
The first problem with the experience today was that DirecTV would not allow me to review bills or statements online. In order to do that I had to sign up for paperless billing. There was no option to continue paper billing and still review bills and statements online. In other words, DirecTV is forcing customers into paperless billing. Personally, I don't mind this but it doesn't seem right.
Next, once I was in I wanted to cancel the NFL Sunday Ticket via the online interface. Nope.
The other problem with this moment is that it tells the users to "call customer service at 1-800-DirecTV." I did. First I got a computer with a fake human voice. Sorry, I hate that. I press Zero to get a real human. No dice. The computer/human voice tells me that in order to get me to the right person, to please say what this is about. So I say "Cancel Sunday Ticket". It/she says "I can help you with that." No, no you can't. And that shows a disregard for my desire to talk to a real human, which you just acknowledged.
I press Zero again. So now I get transferred to a real person. Of course, it's not the right person. She asks me how I'm doing. "Not happy." She asks me or my name and phone number for security. Fine.
Then, after a brief conversation, she says she's going to transfer me to NFL Sunday Ticket department. Really? Why did I go through all of this only to get to the wrong person?
Back up a few paragraphs and look at that picture again. Why did DirecTV give me the general customer service phone number? Why not give me the direct number to the NFL Sunday Ticket department?
The guy I spoke with last did get it taken care of, or at least he told me he did. I'd check right not to be sure but I'm unable to login to my account (might be due to the firewall where I am right now rather than DirecTV). Of course, the person I spoke with in the summer told me it was taken care of.
It turns out that there was a credit on our account for the first NFL Sunday Ticket payment back in July, but they continued to charge us in August and September. How many other people did this happen to? I suggested to the last guy that he forward this concern to his manager to see how many other people have the same problem. He left me with the strong impression he didn't care.
So why am I angry? Because if I hadn't noticed this would have cost me at least $200. This should have been taken care of back in the summer. DirecTV shouldn't engage in practices that make it hard for customers to check on things online, and should not force feed paperless billing on people. And if you're going to insist that I call to get something resolved, give me the direct phone number instead of making me talk to a computer.
As I mentioned, this was still much better than my Time Warner Cable experience or my previous fiasco with HP Customer Service. While it was frustrating to have to jump through all the hoops, once I called the number it took about 7 minutes to get to the right person. That's dramatically better than what I went through with the others. But it's still not good enough.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Time Warner Cable Phone Support: Prognosis Negative
In my previous post I described my initial problems and experience with Time Warner Cable Live Chat. That was only the beginning.
The chat session ended with "Ben" (not his real Indian name) referring me to my "local support" team. He did not provide me with a direct phone number, but rather a web address.
Here's the web link he gave me: Time Warner Cable Northeast Contact Page
He told me it would provide the phone number for the local support staff. Here's what the page looks like:
Now I know I'm no rocket scientist, but I still don't see a phone number on this page no matter how hard I look. Nor do I see any reference to a local support team.
Somehow I found the number 518-869-5500. I don't remember how I did, but that is a local number so I called it. The menu options did not include anything about a local support team but I found something that sounded like what I needed and I chose that option.
And after waiting a while I did get to a speak to a person.
Before that person picked up, I did hear some brief recorded statement that Time Warner was experiencing technical difficulties with e-mail and that they were working on it. I do not know if this had anything to do with our problem and no one I dealt with mentioned anything about it.
So unlike my live chat experience, I'm pretty sure the person I was speaking with was in America and he did not seem to have an accent. However, he didn't seem to know much about anything either, and he was not "local" as will become apparent later.
I experienced the same problem where even though I had entered my mother's information through the phone system, he did not have the account ready when the conversation started.
He never mentioned the spam issue raised by our friend in India. He did bring up the same thing about my mother's address changing, though he couldn't explain why an address change from several years ago would suddenly affect her e-mail now.
He did seem pretty sure that my mother's e-mail accounts would have to be deleted. After some conversation I think he started to figure out that this would not be a satisfying resolution of the situation for us. And there was that moment when he decided he needed to speak to a senior technician. That job title might mean someone who has been working there for more than two weeks.
After a lovely stint on hold he said he was going to connect me to someone in our local tech support who would be able to transfer the e-mail addresses to the "new" account. Maybe.
And then he put me on hold, and not your ordinary 3-5 minute hold. This one took over half an hour.
It's important to note at this point that I'm not your typical customer. Most people would get enraged and hang up at some point. My mother, sitting next to me and enraged, refused to go to bed (it was after 11 pm) and insisted that I hang up the phone. I probably should have been mad. But I use the experience as material for ... writing blog posts. I also use the time to research for related material (see the links in the Time Warner Live Chat post).
But wait ... there's more.
When the nice young lady in the Albany area finally picked up the phone, I let her know how long I'd been waiting, and how much time I'd spent with the national guy and our friend Ben/Sunil in India. Politely, but I made sure she knew I was not a happy camper.
Then we dug into the problem. Of course she did not have all our information ready, so I had to repeat my mother's account information and re-explain the situation for the third time. All of this to find out that she did not handle technical support - just billing issues.
She was going to get someone else on the line but I'd reached my limit. It was midnight. I was tired. And I had zero confidence that the next person was going to fix anything.
So I gave her our contact information and asked that she have someone let us know when the problem was fixed. We went to sleep. We did not receive any e-mails or calls today updating us on the situation. My mother's e-mail did mysteriously start working again. We have no idea why it stopped working, or why it started again.
Did the local support team switch the e-mail addresses over to the new physical address? Was the mysterious recorded statement relevant? Was it a temporary glitch that fixed itself? We just don't know.
To be fair to Sir Patrick Stewart, I have not lost the will to live. This was a minor annoyance which, at least for me, provided some amusement. I suspect his experience was far worse.
Customer service just stinks in much of the business world. Often this is the result of monopolistic environments where consumers just don't have better options.
In competitive environments, however, customer service is a big deal. There's a lot of talk this week about the iPhone 5 being unimpressive when compared to non-Apple smart phones - for example: 10 ways Android beats the iPhone 5. This analysis misses one of the biggest features going for the iPhone - the Genius Bar at the Apple Store.
When you have a problem with your Android phone, where do you go to get it fixed? For iPhone users there's an easy answer. You go to the nearest Apple Store, wait a reasonable time (despite the massive crowd) and then talk to a real person who actually knows what they're talking about and actually fixes your problem.
This not only leads to customer satisfaction, but it also exposes the customer to all the cool stuff in the store. We were there yesterday on an unrelated issue and I started thinking I need a new laptop.
The chat session ended with "Ben" (not his real Indian name) referring me to my "local support" team. He did not provide me with a direct phone number, but rather a web address.
Here's the web link he gave me: Time Warner Cable Northeast Contact Page
He told me it would provide the phone number for the local support staff. Here's what the page looks like:
Somehow I found the number 518-869-5500. I don't remember how I did, but that is a local number so I called it. The menu options did not include anything about a local support team but I found something that sounded like what I needed and I chose that option.
And after waiting a while I did get to a speak to a person.
Before that person picked up, I did hear some brief recorded statement that Time Warner was experiencing technical difficulties with e-mail and that they were working on it. I do not know if this had anything to do with our problem and no one I dealt with mentioned anything about it.
So unlike my live chat experience, I'm pretty sure the person I was speaking with was in America and he did not seem to have an accent. However, he didn't seem to know much about anything either, and he was not "local" as will become apparent later.
I experienced the same problem where even though I had entered my mother's information through the phone system, he did not have the account ready when the conversation started.
He never mentioned the spam issue raised by our friend in India. He did bring up the same thing about my mother's address changing, though he couldn't explain why an address change from several years ago would suddenly affect her e-mail now.
He did seem pretty sure that my mother's e-mail accounts would have to be deleted. After some conversation I think he started to figure out that this would not be a satisfying resolution of the situation for us. And there was that moment when he decided he needed to speak to a senior technician. That job title might mean someone who has been working there for more than two weeks.
After a lovely stint on hold he said he was going to connect me to someone in our local tech support who would be able to transfer the e-mail addresses to the "new" account. Maybe.
And then he put me on hold, and not your ordinary 3-5 minute hold. This one took over half an hour.
It's important to note at this point that I'm not your typical customer. Most people would get enraged and hang up at some point. My mother, sitting next to me and enraged, refused to go to bed (it was after 11 pm) and insisted that I hang up the phone. I probably should have been mad. But I use the experience as material for ... writing blog posts. I also use the time to research for related material (see the links in the Time Warner Live Chat post).
But wait ... there's more.
When the nice young lady in the Albany area finally picked up the phone, I let her know how long I'd been waiting, and how much time I'd spent with the national guy and our friend Ben/Sunil in India. Politely, but I made sure she knew I was not a happy camper.
Then we dug into the problem. Of course she did not have all our information ready, so I had to repeat my mother's account information and re-explain the situation for the third time. All of this to find out that she did not handle technical support - just billing issues.
She was going to get someone else on the line but I'd reached my limit. It was midnight. I was tired. And I had zero confidence that the next person was going to fix anything.
So I gave her our contact information and asked that she have someone let us know when the problem was fixed. We went to sleep. We did not receive any e-mails or calls today updating us on the situation. My mother's e-mail did mysteriously start working again. We have no idea why it stopped working, or why it started again.
Did the local support team switch the e-mail addresses over to the new physical address? Was the mysterious recorded statement relevant? Was it a temporary glitch that fixed itself? We just don't know.
To be fair to Sir Patrick Stewart, I have not lost the will to live. This was a minor annoyance which, at least for me, provided some amusement. I suspect his experience was far worse.
Customer service just stinks in much of the business world. Often this is the result of monopolistic environments where consumers just don't have better options.
In competitive environments, however, customer service is a big deal. There's a lot of talk this week about the iPhone 5 being unimpressive when compared to non-Apple smart phones - for example: 10 ways Android beats the iPhone 5. This analysis misses one of the biggest features going for the iPhone - the Genius Bar at the Apple Store.
When you have a problem with your Android phone, where do you go to get it fixed? For iPhone users there's an easy answer. You go to the nearest Apple Store, wait a reasonable time (despite the massive crowd) and then talk to a real person who actually knows what they're talking about and actually fixes your problem.
This not only leads to customer satisfaction, but it also exposes the customer to all the cool stuff in the store. We were there yesterday on an unrelated issue and I started thinking I need a new laptop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)