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."
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.
" So now I need to fax the receipt to them because they have never heard of this thing called email."
They just know your ISP sucks balls and a technology that has barely changed since the 80s is more faster and more reliable.
Voter initiatives to install municipal infrastructure (fiber, cable, etc) and outlaw monopoly franchise agreements. This way you don't have to wait for corrupt politicians to do it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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).
suck it cable companies, we dont need you anymore, we just need internet access and-DAMMIT. well played cable companies, well played.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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!”
The more interesting question is "Why do American cable companies loathe Americans?"
The major source of frustration is tied to the lack of compatition. Most areas I know have little option to leave their cable contract because the industry has made sure there are no competing services that would spur their customer service into actually playing nice to retain their customers. They know that they don't need to care because all other options have reduced quality. I for one have no options other than pulling the plug to go with multiple antennas for terestrial broadcasts from 40 miles away, or satellite. No real internet options. The 'last mile' predicament leaves me wondering how much Comcast actually pays to keep the compatition out of my community. Any mergers will only make their position stronger so they can afford to raise prices even more as they reduce what channels I get on my plan. I currentlt have less than half tha channels that I had with Adelphia before that merger, and what I have left is mostly junk other than PBS where there is actually more selection through terestrial.
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?
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 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.
Except that the city having Google Fiber isn't every house having access. Google announced that Google Fiber was coming to certain neighborhoods in Atlanta. Guess what, AT&T and Comcast both announced new faster speeds for less money! But only in the same neighborhoods that are getting access to Google Fiber. It's obvious they have the capability and would still make money, but have no incentive to unless someone comes into the market offering something better. And if they do up their speeds and lower their prices, they sure as hell aren't going to offer it to the poor bastards that don't have a choice.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
As someone who has a choice of one cable provider (Brighthouse) or one telecom company (AT&T) I've been following fiber deployments fairly closely. There are a few companies deploying Google Fiber style networks in my state but they are moving slowly and not hitting my area any time soon. As such I contacted Google to ask if there was anything on the net to help interested communities build out their own networks. Within a few hours they got back to me with this: http://www.ftthcouncil.org/ While Cable and Telecom companies continually try to stamp out such efforts there are a number that have gone through. If we can get more communities on this bandwagon it would help make them harder to stop. Head to the page, share the information, and start evangelizing in your area.
Coffee: The lifeblood of intelligence in civilization.
Muni broadband does take money, but it brings benefits. Just look at South Korea. See the NY Times story on "what silicon valley can learn from seoul." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06....
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.