Slashdot Mirror


Why Americans Loathe Cable Companies

HughPickens.com writes: Vikas Bajaj writes in the NYT that the results are in and the American Customer Satisfaction Index shows that customer satisfaction with cable TV, Internet and phone service providers have declined to a seven-year low. Of the 43 industries on which the survey solicits opinions, TV and Internet companies tied for last place in customer satisfaction. "Internet and TV have always been among the lowest scoring," says David VanAmburg, director of the Index. "But this year they're at the very bottom." The study, which is based on more than 14,000 consumer surveys, gives companies a rating from 0 to 100. The ACSI reports huge drops in customer satisfaction for Comcast and Time Warner Cable, following their failed merger. Already one of the lowest-scoring companies in the ACSI, Comcast sheds 10 percent to a customer satisfaction score of 54. Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable earns the distinction as least-satisfying company in the Index after falling 9 percent to 51. Joining Time Warner Cable in the basement is ACSI newcomer Mediacom Communications (51), which serves smaller markets in the Midwest and South. "Customer service in these industries has long been bad," says VanAmburg of Internet and TV providers. "They don't have a good business model for handling inquiries with efficiency and respect. It goes back a decade plus."

Even though those complaints are longstanding, customer frustration has risen along with the ever-rising prices. "You compound all that with the prices customers are paying, and that's the final straw," says VanAmburg. "They're opening bills each month and saying 'I'm paying how much?'" In an age of over-the-top viewing options like Hulu and Netflix, customer dissatisfaction may increasingly translate to companies' bottom lines. "There was a time when pay TV could get away with discontented users without being penalized by revenue losses from defecting customers," says Claes Fornell, chairman and founder of the Index. "But those days are over."

19 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If only google fiber rolled out across the country, then these "providers" would shit their pants as they became irrelevant and insolvent.

    1. Re:Google Fiber by schwit1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But this monopoly would be benevolent. Keep drinking the kool-aid

    2. Re:Google Fiber by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would put my trust in municipal and state fiber before taking a chance with Google, which could just call it quits on a whim if precedence is to mean anything. Circumvent the politicians and put the initiative on the ballot.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Google Fiber by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they wouldn't. CableCos are doing fine where GF has rolled out. Of course, in those areas the consumers are paying 1/2 the cost for 10x the bandwidth because there's actual competition. And they're making money there just fine - they're just not making *as much* money as they are where there aren't competitive markets.

      They can provide higher speeds at lower rates - especially for internet where there is no "content" fee involved (as it is with programming) - with very little affect on their bottom line. They just don't.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would put my trust in municipal and state fiber before taking a chance with Google, which could just call it quits on a whim if precedence is to mean anything. Circumvent the politicians and put the initiative on the ballot.

      What "chance" are you taking with google fiber, exactly? With a google app, yes you may come to depend on it and when it goes away there is no exact replacement which can perfectly integrate as a drop in replacement. However, with google internet service, if it goes away, what sort of integration would you have where you couldn't just drop in a replacement internet service? And when google discontinues an app, nobody is going to want to buy it up and google probably isn't going to want to sell the code anyway. But with internet service, the infrastructure would be worthwhile for other companies to buy up, and google doesn't have much to give up in the way of intellectual property, so I can't imagine someone else wouldn't buy it from them.

    5. Re:Google Fiber by njnnja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about your specific state or municipality, but with so many of them cutting exclusivity deals with the local cable company I don't think there are many that could be trusted. As soon as Comcast promises to give a couple new computers to some local school you can be sure they will find some reason why the municipal fiber will have to be shut down. You might be able to install muni fiber by ballot but you can't run it that way.

    6. Re:Google Fiber by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really don't get it do you. If Google fiber comes to an end - then that means less competition. That's the point. If Comcast or AT&T come in and take over Google's infrastructure that does not create competition. You assume a new player will emerge. Why? They don't exists today. What makes you think that someone will come out just because Google gave up? Think Potsy think.

    7. Re:Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well the same thing happens with private companies too. In California, we have gas pipelines blowing up and killing people due to neglected maintenance and age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion). This pipe was installed in 1956. This is with PG&E - a private company. They don't put their profits into maintenance since profits are apparently supposed to go to executives and bribes for public utility commissioners (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-puc-scandal-emails-20150131-story.html) They were fined 1.6 billion dollars. Think they will do maintenance now? Probably not. But they have purchased a lot of TV airtime advertising how much they care and emphasizing that their employees are proud community members.

    8. Re:Google Fiber by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No question that this happens with private companies. Back to the internet, look at the current state of telecommunications in places with a private telephone monopolies... Verizon in my area still only offers copper service. And while it generally "works", it hasn't had any updates since the 90s, yet the rates constantly go one direction - up.

      I was just pointing out that handing the responsibility over to the government won't necessarily buy you anything. If they don't have the will to regulate a monopoly provider, they probably aren't going to be very responsive when they own the business. It's practically the same situation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Google Fiber by Fuzion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But this monopoly would be benevolent. Keep drinking the kool-aid

      Why would it be a monopoloy? It'd just be another competitor. We're already seeing providers like AT&T dropping prices and increasing service in regions where Google Fiber is competing.

      --
      "Knowledge makes us accountable." - Che Guevara
  2. Haggling for Rates by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a service that I used only a handful of times a week, the straw the brolemthe camel's back for me was the automatic rate increase every year until you call to complain. That's just abusive and degrading. I don't want to haggle for my service. Offer me a price that is fair to both of us and make it the same for all customers with the same service. Allowing me to haggle just means you don't value my time.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    1. Re:Haggling for Rates by Coren22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why the food industry resists GMO labeling

      Perhaps that is because all of the GMO labeling is an attempt at scare tactics as there is no scientific evidence of harm. When you can produce any kind of indication of a possible harm from GMO, rather than the equivalent of anti-vax arguments, perhaps there will be a reason to have markings on packaging. Until then, you are just trying to put scare quotes on food packaging for no reason at all.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re: Haggling for Rates by Coren22 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Should we also add labels "may contain dihydrogen monoxyde"? That has about as valid a use as adding GMO labels.

      In all honesty, if you want GMO labels, you might as well add them to ever piece of food grown, as there isn't a food plant that hasn't been genetically modified in some way. Or are you trying to say that gene splicing done before the genetics revolution is somehow not the same?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      Do you refuse to drink French wine because they used genetic modification techniques to fight the wine blight?

      Food packaging is designed to inform about possible issues (may contain nuts), not the latest idiocy (GMO). Demanding that food makers add GMO labeling makes no sense without some kind of scientific study proving harm, or government intervention. So if you want to be anti science, you can petition your representative to make a law requiring GMO labels on all food, but it will be just as silly as it is in Europe.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. No options. by blueshift_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the biggest issue is that you're locked into a provider by area. What makes people (including myself) angrier than having terrible customer service is having terrible customer service and no real alternatives to choose from. For TV you pretty much have one cable provider, maybe verizon/AT&T as an alternative, and the various satellite providers - which isn't the worst. However for internet, the satellite providers are slow - so only useful if you can't get DSL or cable. So you have one cable provider and maybe one DSL. Both have jacked up prices and terrible service; then you just accept it, pick the cheapest one(which isn't that cheap), and grumble on reviews. Oh and if you live in one of the few places that have google fibre or similar then you naturally take that. What it comes down to is that the monopolized system has hurt the customers (surprise, surprise).

    1. Re:No options. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect that it used to be good for the internet that it wasn't considered a utility, given the risk of being misunderstood and folded into some aspect of Ma Bell's 'regulated monopoly' as the non-line-switched stepchild; but now that the incumbents have caught on, and realized that the internet is both a serious threat to cable TV and wireline phone; and that there is lots of money to be made by using your man-in-the-middle position to extract rents from activity on the internet; that time has probably passed.

      I don't need a municipal ISP; but I'd be delighted to have my municipality run fiber to a peering point with the same competence that they've shown with handling my utility hookups. Once you get the last mile out of the way, competition becomes something more than a quaint theory again, so you can let the market take it from there; but as long as the last mile is, at best, a duopoly, and in the hands of incumbents who don't really have incentives aligned with the good of the internet; we have a problem.

    2. Re:No options. by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the right way to look at it: we don't need "ISP as utility", we need "last mile as utility".

      A local utility that just maintained the pipe to my house would be a great idea, and let any ISP who wanted compete for my business from there. There are a few places in the US where some quirk still makes independent ISPs possible, and those guys are great. Anything that gets us back to the possibility of independent ISPs in addition to competition between the big guys will fix the remaining issues.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. That's the easy question by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more interesting question is "Why do American cable companies loathe Americans?"

  5. TV should be free. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the many places thanks to the move to digital you can get all the networks for free but many people don't bother which I think is dumb. In many other locations the cable companies have changed the way TV stations work. I can get about 12 channels on my TV with a simple antenna. Only two are networks! The cost of entry is low but the major networks do not want to be in this OTA market because the cable companies have to pay to carry them now.
    I think that the law should change so that cable companies only have to pay for the broadcast channels that customers can get with an antenna. TV used to be free and we need to go back to that. It is insane to pay for a TV with ads!

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  6. Reliability by allquixotic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I have many issues with ISPs that have been covered fairly well by other responses here, one issue that few have talked about is reliability of the service, and the ability to get it fixed when it breaks.

    At least around here, it seems almost 1 out of every 2 people has some significant reliability problems with their Internet connectivity, and isn't sure how to fix them. When they call the ISP (whether it's cable, DSL, fiber, LTE, ..) the first thing they ask them is to reboot their modem and/or router and/or computer. When that doesn't fix it, the tech doesn't know what else to do. They often send out a guy to take a look, who'll say that your cable modem is shot, and have you get a replacement. If it's under warranty or owned by the cable company, sometimes that might be free; if you own the equipment and it's out of warranty, you have to put up for a new one.

    But 8 times out of 10, replacing your modem / routers does not fix the problem. Nor does going from WiFi to ethernet -- another common "fix". Sure, WiFi has problems, but if your issue is actually with some part of the cable, especially if it's a part that's buried underground, it can be nearly impossible to convince the company that the problem is there, and moreover, to get them to dig it up and replace it.

    I'm on a grandfathered unlimited LTE data plan as my primary Internet connection, now. Cellular towers are pretty reliable due to their centralized infrastructure and the number of users it would affect if they were having a problem. I've had a few persistent issues with my LTE connection that lasted for weeks, but each time, it magically went away after very little effort on my part, likely after they received hundreds of calls from other customers about the same problem, and had to send someone up the tower to fix it.

    Those with landlines to the premises are in a much more difficult situation. The company is likely to pin the problem on hardware that is owned by you, or wiring that is installed within the walls of your house. They will not be willing to admit that the problem may lie with the line buried underground. Acknowledging that problem would effectively cause them to have to outlay a significant cost to a contractor to dig up and replace the cable, so instead, they treat each individual support call as a new incident, and forget all the history of your problem where you've diligently worked by process of elimination to determine that it must be something in the line.

    I remember years ago when we used deduction to determine that our DSL problem must lie with the phone line beyond the premises of our house. We replaced all our devices, hooked up to ethernet instead of WiFi, and even completely replaced all the DSL filters and phone line wiring in our house. The problem persisted. But the tech support guys kept experiencing a case of amnesia; every time we called, despite trying to ask them to refer to previous tickets and things we'd already tried, they just wanted us to reboot our modem, over and over and over and over again, as if that would help. This would happen even if we got the same tech support person on multiple calls.

    At work, a lot of people come to me for advice on problems they're having with tech at home. I don't know why they do it; they just do. I get my fair share of laptop problems; Windows won't boot; they have a virus; whatever. But the #1 most frequent problem I get is that their Internet is unreliable and drops out all the time. Occasionally I'll find that replacing their cable modem fixes the problem, but in many more cases, we narrow it down to the landline, or at least to an ONT or something exterior to their dwelling that isn't owned by the resident -- at which point, you're basically at a dead-end.

    The willingness to address problems, and to refer to case history to eliminate potential sources of problems, is seemingly absent from nearly all ISP support employees. And you wonder why their ACSI score is low...