The problem is (IMHO) that there is a danger of setting a precedent.
If everyone was to call and say "give me this special offer or I will walk" and NTL did this, then NTL would be making a loss on all fronts.
NTL, like any other company, will give people reduced rates to get them to join, once they have joined, they are likely to stay, and the price goes up to the standard rate.
In this case, it sounds like the CSR did not follow procedure and put the call through to retentions, however, the meat of the discussion seems ok to me - if someone is threatening to leave, and you cannot accede to their demands, then they have the right to change suppliers, should they wish to do so, that is their choice to make.
the wording may or may not be exact, however what is often missed in these transcript type discussions, is the tone in which things were said.
"I'm sorry, there is nothing more I can do for you" can be said in such a way as to be seen os "go away, I can't be arsed to help", or "I really wish I could help you, but I am unable to do so".
The fact is that someone wanted a discount that new customers were being offered as an incentive, and was refused that discount - they were given an option - cancel, then sign up again - but declined it.
We cannot always get what we want, and sometimes it is easier to moan about the person, rather than admit that you tried (no harm in trying, after all
) and failed to get a discount.
Just remember - you probably got some kind of incentive when you joined, so you really should not complain that others get one when they join.
As ever - just my opinions - feel free to ignore or disagree
