Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Telecommunication Customer Service Worldwide

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the leveled-playing-field? dept.

imin8r writes " Whirlpool writes that an Telstra, Australia's largest Telco (who also happens to own all wholesale access to ADSL in Australia), had rejected an ADSL user's application from a small ADSL provider, but subsequently accepted their own ADSL application from the same user. The funny thing is, the smaller ISP sells exactly the same service as Telstra as they are a Telstra reseller. Both providers use the same line, same exchange and same equipment. However, the story doesn't end there. When Telstra was approached by the aggrieved user explaining what had happened, Telstra offered him a settlement to keep quiet. When he didn't, they disconnected his already connected ADSL service. One of the arguments for Telstra's bad track record with customer service is the fact that they were previously government owned but are now partly privatised (and listed on the stock exchange). As a result they own a lot of the infrastructure which has been paid with by taxpayers money, but any new Telco players still need to use a lot of Telstra's infrastructure. I'd like to know whether full de-regulation of the telecommunication industry in the United States has benefited customer service and also what effect it has had on providing innovative services. "

9 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Before and After... by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Informative
    Before the breakup of AT&T, we used to say "New York Telephone sucks."

    Then we said, "NYNEX sucks."

    Then we said, "Bell Atlantic sucks."

    Now we say, "Verizon sucks."

    The name may change, but the suck remains the same.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Before and After... by jefeweiss · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The government never should have let the Baby Bells keep ahold of both the physical lines and the services that use them. Of course, this is in hindsight. Maybe competition would have worked out better if there had been a split into a line owning company and a service providing company. Expecting the Baby Bells to allow competitors access to the lines they control was fairly naive.

      If the competition had been a little more even from the beginning, maybe the service would be better now. I have Verizon myself and the customer service is pretty awful. I think customer service is kind of a lost art in any field though. Good customer service is not compatible with the short term cost cutting that people who buy and sell stocks like to see. The longer people in customer service positions work with a given company the more helpful they will be, as they learn the systems, and who to get a hold of. Unfortunately, the longer they work at the company the more they get paid, which makes them an attractive target for cost cutting. I would be pretty surprised if the average length of employment of a CSR (customer service representative) who actually answers the phones at a major company is more then 2 or 3 years. At that length of employment they are probably just about trained.

  2. Verizon by JSmooth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Similiar horror stories here but on a much grander scale. My part of the world (Rural Massachusetts) had limited high speed options for businesses. T1 from Verizon started at $750.00 for the line (ISP was extra). Then the city fathers, etc. got together and convinced Global Crossing to come in (before they went belly up). Now T1 with internet from GC at most $500.00. Long Distance was cheap, etc. However, the last mile was still Verizon lines. Right before GC came in a customer order and had installed a verizon T1 in less than 8 business days. For the same service under Verizon (A subcontractor) that service can take MONTHS).

    Fact of life, those who have don't want to share.

  3. I think the telco cust-serv in the US is bad. by rushfan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have SBC, so YMMV.

    I called them to get DSL when I moved (within Cali). I went to DSLReports.com and saw where the CO is and how far away I am. I called SBC -- They told me I'm too far for DSL (yeah, right, I'm like 1/3 the max distance).

    So, I called Covad (who uses SBC's last-mile line) and got 1.5/384 with them. SBC's customer service doesn't know what they are doing, and what's worse is they don't really care to know.

    Their office hours are horrible (I mean, most huge non-monopolies have 24hr customer service), you can't phone in a payment easily, if you get online billing, you don't get a paper bill anymore.

    And the sad part is they seem to be on par with all the other baby-bells.

    Just my rants on my local phone monopoly and they
    're lame customer service....

    (although AT&T's local phone customer service is 10 times worse from what I hear)

    - Rushdan

  4. Wireless is the Answer (as usual) by moehoward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wireless is the only way out of this mess. I have a wireless high-speed connection. It is a fine piece of technology. As soon as QOS issues are resolved for the long term, I'll put my phone service on it full time as well via VOIP.

    This is not the phone companys' fault. By "this", I mean this whole mess of line and plant ownership. I can definitely see their point of view. At the same time, I can see the point of view of those who want to use that public(?) infrastructure to roll out their own services. I just don't see these issues with the lines and plants being solved any time in the next 15 years.

    Wireless solves many problems. I know there are scalability issues, but I think these will be solved. QOS is another issue as compared to hard wire, but this will get resolved as well.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
  5. We're shutting off your service ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny

    which works because we've declared that is doesn't work and we can't have facts contradicting our official policy. Furthermore, your informing people of this unfortunate situation directly violated our "Don't ever say anything we dislike" agreement, quite prominent in the EULA you would have seen if the service had worked which it never did, despite the fact that it did.

  6. Not in the US but.. by Roadmaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    IN the early 90's, Mexico's formerly state-owned telephone company, Telmex, was privatised. Previous to this process, service was abysmal, as befits any government branch; you could expect to wait 3 months for a new phone line, technology lagged behind by a big margin, customer attention at offices was pathetic with queues of 100's of people.


    After it got privatised, things improved significantly for customers, but that's because they were so bad, they had no place to go but up (improvement). With private capital infussion, Telmex modernized its technology, hired more and more competent staff, and started offering new services. This sounds good, however it's really not.


    The problem when you privatise something like this is that you get an "instant monopoly", and that's what Telmex is. With 95% market share for land lines, over 50% long-distance, and 70% cell phone share, all competitors face an uphill battle, plus they also have to depend on Telmex's infrastructure to provide their services. Telmex owns the land line infrastructure and, as such, is the only provider of ADSL service, leaving all other competitors at a serious disadvantage.


    All in all, it would appear to be a bad idea to do this; a possible option would have been to sell the former state-owned company in parts, to avoid having a single point of control. Another would be having better government controls over the company (right now the federal telecommunications commision, COFETEL, is basically a puppet, unable to put telmex in check for their anticompetitive behavior). Because right now it looks like all competitors will eventually be out of business, either by bankruptcy or giving up on competing with a monopoly such as Telmex, and then the Telmex will probably have no incentive to keep innovating, which so far has been the only positive consequence of the privatisation. (ok, and they now install new phone lines in an average of 10 days)

  7. True Verizon Story by BobGregg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The idea of getting different stories from Baby Bells (or other incumbents) vs. resellers is nothing new. Two years ago when I moved into my townhouse, the prior occupants had had DSL through EarthLink/Covad. Verizon was the local provider, and owned the switches and lines. Covad had the actual DSLAM in my local central office, and EarthLink of course sells service pretty much everywhere in the US, including in my neighborhood. When I tried to order my own DSL service through EarthLink, I was turned down - apprently Verizon told them, "equipment incompatibility". They said maybe my local switch didn't support DSL. I told them that the prior occupants had actually had DSL at my address, but it didn't make any difference; they swore that my line wouldn't support DSL. Later I was told I was too far from the central office, even though I was actually 5000 feet. This went on for some time.

    After several more attempts, as well as going through Covad and calling Verizon directly (which did nothing - they just told me to call Covad), I finally discovered (through a friend that had a back-door into their systems - yes, seriously) that the *real* reason I had been denied service was because when I established local service, Verizon had switched the circuit from my house to the central office from a copper line to a fiber one. No amount of inquiry from EarthLink or Covad, or even my own calls, had been able to get them to tell me this.

    I had Verizon switch my line back to a copper circuit, but even after this, Verizon *still* turned me down for service! That's right - they still told me (and EarthLink) that my line was incompatible. EarthLink finally told me they would not offer me service, even if I could get Verizon to declare my line eligible for DSL. The reason? It cost them $500 dollars per request to Verizon to establish service - I am not making this up, it was a sales VP who told me this. He told me essentially to go away, and try some other GSP. Of course, there *were* no other GSP's - other than Verizon themselves.

    So finally I gave in and called Verizon Online. They too told me that my line was incompatible. When I asked why, I was told that I had a fiber circuit. I told the sales rep that I had had Verizon techs switch my circuit to copper, and they said they believed me, but that their computer systems didn't know that, so they still couldn't take my order. "However," the sales rep told me, "you *could* take your complaint to our Appeals Line".

    Uhh... Appeals Line? What the heck is that?

    Turns out that Verizon Online had encountered these situations before, and had set up an Appeals Line so that customers could have actual techs (rather than sales reps) manually re-evaluate their accounts for DSL service. So... why didn't EarthLink and Covad just do they same thing? "Oh, we don't make that available to our competitors; it's only for our customers."

    In the end, the Appeals department looked at my account, and - shucky-darn, whaddya know! - decided that my line really *was* eligible for DSL after all. And that was that. After 4 months (!!) of trying, I had a DSL account established within a DAY of calling Verizon Online instead of their competitors.

    That's what the FCC calls, "fair competition".

    Of course, that was two years ago. Maybe things have changed... but somehow, I doubt it.

    Bob

  8. Telcos in US as bad as ever, no, worse than ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I'd like to know whether full de-regulation of the telecommunication industry in the United States has benefited customer service and also what effect it has had on providing innovative services.
    No. The industry is now in the process of being regulated again. Many xSP's are in immediate danger of going under. The big Telcos quietly make it impossible for the independants to stay afloat.

    Our government officials are in their back pockets and there is currently a lot of "back room" deals going on between FCC and Verizon, et. al.

    One result is that now the Big telcos will be allowed to jack the equipment and infrastructure leasing as high as they want to. (they say "high enough to be profitable").

    It has not helped the customer service one bit. The small ISP's have great customer service. The big Telcos are still as devious and downright evil as they used to be.

    Example 1:
    4 years ago I signed up for DSL. Long and Short: it didn't work. We tried for 1.5 years. The whole time the telco was charging me for the service with the understanding that I would be re-imbersed once they got it working. I had to keep the account open so they could work on it.

    When the time came for me to cut my losses, they refused to reimberse me, and tacked on $2000 in fees. It took 3 (count them THREE) distinct Better Business Bureau cases to get my money back. Each time it was "oh yeah that is off your bill now", next cycle it would be back. Funny, the Better Business Bureau still says it has 0 information on Verizon, despite my 3 documented cases, which I won, all of which prove that Verizon is nothing but a predatory mega-corporation. They are organized crime in it's purist form.

    At one point I was told by a Verizon customer service rep:
    "You will pay for this. You are just like the rest of them, trying to get something for nothing. You disgust me."

    The service NEVER worked! I never transferred the first packet through that DSL line. This was verified by their own engineers.

    Example 2:
    Last week my wife signs up for the Verizon unlimited long distance plan.

    She called them to sign up for this plan, they went over a bunch of stuff and finished up with the rep telling her, and I quote:
    "Ok mrs. xxx, everything is in order. You can start using your new long distance plan in 24 hours".

    24 hours later I start dialing my cousin in San Francisco, from the east cost... then it hits me.

    "Check your account status..." my internal alarm voice shouts.

    Not only does the service not start within 24 hours, the account rep hadn't even signed us up! I called back, found this out, and signed up for the plan. The new rep tells me it doesn't start until the next billing cycle. You had better believe I will go through the same drill before using the service.

    My point is, if I had just started using it and gotten a $600 phone bill, do you think they would have entertained the notion that the rep had given us bad information? No, I would have been screwed. They tried to steal from me again, as far as I am concerned. I was there when my wife signed up. I know she did it and how. I was listening.

    Moral: Big Telcos in the US have gotten worse since deregulation. Now they are shutting the small telcos down, so it can only get worse. They do everything except reach into your pants to take your money. If I wasn't such a bulldog, I would have $4000 STOLEN by them from me in less than 4 years. The Mafioso and Russian Mob could probably learn something about doing crimes from Verizon.

    I am not optimistic.

    l8,
    AC