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."
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."
This is the irritating discussion you have with the people when you try to terminate services, where they argue they are the lower cost option. Not the point. The point is what you get for your dollar, my argument to them is the competitor costs less/bwidth and I choose solely based on bwidth.
Lots of "but but but the value", but once you explain that their other "value-add" services are junk and replaceable with free apps that just need bandwidth, they are reduced to hostility. Google FIber is the lowest $/bwidth option out there, at the moment. If they were more pervasive, then other bandwidth providers could be compelled to increase their bandwidths. Unfortunately it's just not prevalent enough and the monopolies don't have any motivation to upgrade. The better solution is state/muni options where we can vote on our bandwidth, and use that as a forcing function on private companies to upgrade their networks.
I prefer free-markets where I can get them, but the last mile is anything but a free-market.
It's time to declare the last mile a public utility - just like roads, sewer, and power. Build and maintain fiber networks just like we build and maintain roads, sewers and the power grid.
Any number of companies could compete to offer data, voice, and video over that publicly maintained infrastructure.
This way maximizes competition where possible and minimizes monopolistic control over things that are "natural" monopolies.
Doesnt matter. If the customer wants to know that information, then concealing the fact that it is GMO is deception. If the customers don't get the info from labeling, then they will get it from places the vendors can't control, and will no longer trust labeling. Let's say they lose market share and remove GMO to regain it. How to share that with customers, if they no longer trust product info? Word of mouth reputation takes much longer to fix when you sabotage communication.