Cox Enterprises Inc

On July 19, 2013, I ordered a TV + Internet bundle from Cox Communications via their website, requesting a "Record-6" Whole-Home HD DVR plus two client DVR units. This transaction was completed with me entering my credit card information and receiving a price-lock guarantee of $140.49 plus tax for 24 months, and scheduling an installation date and time. I have documentation of the offer and acceptance of this agreement. On July 28, the date of the installation, Cox's third-party installer brought a regular non-Whole-Home DVR box and said that Cox denied I had ordered the Whole-Home units. He stated that the "Whole Home" DVR would cost a lot more money than my previous agreement, which Cox would not be honoring. On July 29, I spoke with Susan in Cox's customer service department, who confirmed that Cox would not be honoring the original terms or price that I "locked in" on July 19, and instead the price per month for the equipment would be around $170 per month. She denied that my original order was for the "Whole-Home" system and stated that instead, I had ordered the ordinary HD-DVR unit, despite the fact that I have an online receipt that proves the contrary. I also noted that my same deal, including the Whole Home DVR, is still available at $140.49 per month according to the Cox website as of 7/29/13. Cox took the position that a "TV Preferred" package, at substantial extra cost, is required for their "new" Whole-Home DVRs. I have screenshot proof that this "requirement" is not indicated on the website, and was not, as it should have been, automatically added when the Whole-Home DVR option was selected. Even if there is some additional cost requirement for Cox's Whole-Home service, that is the fault of Cox and not the consumer. Cox is engaging in a "bait-and-switch" tactic where they "guarantee" a "price lock" for services for 24 months, then reveal to the customer at the time of installation that the price will be much more than previously agreed. Susan at Cox's customer service center said that Cox would not honor the terms of my original agreement with them, and she had no authority to do anything about it. Apart from the inherent dishonesty, there is a distinct danger that many people will be confused about Cox's practices and feel they are obligated to pay the higher prices revealed upon installation. This danger would be most prevalent with respect to elderly consumers. Cox's practice is fraudulent, and has caused me to go without internet and television services (which I use for my business) for several days.