Which is, of course, his right. And maybe it would turn out that the rep would refuse to recognize his answer. And there is some social value in there occasionally being a crank who refuses to play by the rules just to expose them for the silliness there is.
But realize he wasn't trying to get through this call easily. He was trying to make a point.
Also, the caller was not a "crank who refuses to play by the rules." There is no rule that says customers have to fill out a survey upon canceling service. It was clear to me that the Comcast agent was also not asking those questions honestly. He was using them as a rhetorical trick to get the customer to eventually say, "Fine, don't cancel my service."
This is obvious: by answering the question. I'll repeat that he was under no obligation to answer that question.
My mother-in-law does the same thing this guy does: stands her ground and refuses to answer any questions. It's completely her right to engage in that manner, but she neither asks for nor gets any sympathy for how long she has to stay on the phone with people.
Maximally demanding all your rights all the time is usually not coincident with smooth interactions with other human beings.
"I've had horrible customer support from a Comcast rep, and I don't want to continue to patronize a company that would hire someone who acts that way."
(The next logical step is to ask for the offending rep's name, to which he could respond "what was your name again?")
What's the retention angle from that point? Is it "I promise if you stay with us, I'll go right to my boss and have him fire me"?
This is a great example for how setting goals can do more harm than good. If you start measuring people, they'll optimize for what you are measuring.