All Major ISPs Have Declined In Customer Satisfaction, Says Study (dslreports.com)

The latest American Customer Satisfaction Index survey finds that Verizon FiOS has been rated the highest in customer satisfaction with a score of 70 out of 100. But, as DSLReports notes, that's nothing to write home about since that score was a one point decline from one year earlier. Furthermore, the industry average was 64 points, which is not only a decline from last year but lower than most of the other industries the group tracks. From the report: According to the ACSI, high prices and poor customer service continues to plague an U.S. broadband industry with some very obvious competitive shortcomings. "According to users, most aspects of ISPs are getting worse," the ACSI said. "Courtesy and helpfulness of staff has waned to 76 and in-store service is slower (74). Bills are more difficult to understand (-3 percent to 71), and customers aren't happy with the variety of plans available (-3 percent to 64)." Not a single ISP tracked by the firm saw an improvement in customer satisfaction scores.

The worst of the worst according to the ACSI is Mediacom, which saw a 9% plummet year over year to a score of 53, which is lower than most airlines, banks, and even the IRS according to the report. Charter Spectrum and Suddenlink also saw 8% declines in satisfaction year over year, and despite repeated claims that customer service is now its top priority, Comcast saw zero improvement in broadband satisfaction and a slight decline in pay TV satisfaction.

Comments

The current administration emboldens them

[rsilvergun]

I know that's not a popular thing to say, but that doesn't make it less true. We have an administration who's stated goal is less regulation and who's people keep getting caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar with no consequences. Is it any wonder why ISPs think they can get away with more?

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[pots]

You can't blame this just on the administration (i.e.: the executive branch), this has become a generalized Republican platform goal. You can look at the recent vote in the senate - only three Republicans voted to preserve network neutrality.

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[MoarSauce123]

While there is something to this argument, the issue is far older than the current regime. Core problem is the lack of competition. In most places you are lucky if there is more than one provider. I do not know of places where there are more than three. Real competition starts when there are five or more providers who have to work hard for customers to stick with them. If the choice is at best the other guys who do far worse then there is no improvement and due to lack of choice no customer loss. The US has freakishly expensive and rather craptastically slow and unreliable Internet service compared to other industrialized countries. Also does not help that the infrastructure of the last mile is very susceptible to environmental impacts. Nailing the lines to poles like Edison did is not the way to go.

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[pots]

Verizon was fined for violating network nuetrality in 2012 when they blocked people from tethering, again in 2016 for supercookies, and they were throttling video just last year. This is a non-exhaustive list.

Each of these violations happened under different rules, which they thought they could get away with (and mostly did) because the former rules were so lax. Your claim that no "ISP has yet done anything differently" is ridiculous - what they have done is dropped any plans that they had for maintaining network neutrality, because those plans are now unnecessary. Now they go back to what they were doing before, only this time with no consequences.

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[pots]

If you had bothered to read my very short comment: "what they have done is dropped any plans that they had for maintaining network neutrality."

I gather you are claiming that when someone has a history of bad behavior, and then we get rid of any rules against bad behavior, we should assume that this person will now behave well? Now that they have no incentive to do so, and every incentive to keep doing as they did before?

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[pots]

Why can't the customers be unhappy with the rule change? I'm unhappy with the rule change. I'm a customer, and polls say that net neutrality has wide bipartisan support among voters (i.e.: customers like me).

Also, the parent was claiming that these actions have emboldened the ISPs into believing that they can get away with worse customer support, which would lead to consumer dissatisfaction. All I said was that these actions can't be blamed solely on the administration.

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[mi]

Why can't the customers be unhappy with the rule change?

They can be, but it wouldn't be reflect in their opinion of their ISP until the ISP has done something violating the abolished rule. Ergo, your harping over "the GOP" is off-topic.

the parent was claiming that these actions have emboldened the ISPs into believing that they can get away with worse customer support

Quality of customer support, as I pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Say it with me: "absolutely nothing". There, see? Go try to be relevant in some other thread.

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[pots]

They can be, but it wouldn't be reflect in their opinion of their ISP until the ISP has done something violating the abolished rule.

What? Why? It's no secret that the ISPs are behind the change, even though it's the GOP who are actually implementing it. I say once again: the change is fully sufficient to make me unhappy with the ISPs.

Also, to repeat myself, when I mentioned the GOP it was in response to the parent who specifically blamed "the administration." If you want to claim that I was off-topic, you're going to have to address that somehow. Your insistence that quality of customer service has nothing to do with network neutrality is... a thing, but you've done nothing at all to support your claim. Given that it contradicts what the parent said, and what I was replying to, you can't skip this step.

Really, this isn't difficult. I don't know why you keep dodging this and making your little unsupported declarations instead. The parent's claim was pretty tenuous, it wouldn't be a hard argument to make. But instead you keep insisting that my comment, which was a direct response to the claim that the parent made, was off-topic.

My suspicion is that when you came into this thread you didn't want to bother figuring out what people were actually talking about. Instead, you decided to respond to my comment as though it were in a vacuum and ever since then you've just been doubling down on that mistake.

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[mi]

What? Why? It's no secret that the ISPs are behind the change

It is not a secret, but nobody cares. You care, because you are an Authoritarian and wish to legally ban things you don't like. I care, because I am a Libertarian and don't want government to intervene into anything.

But no one else cares. Whatever it is, that lowered people's perception of their ISPs, could not have been the "net neutrality" abolition. The much denounced Ajit Pai, in particular, used to work for Verizon — had your fantasies of people rising up in support of your desire to tell ISPs how to do things been rooted in reality, his former employer would've been the worst hit.

Yet, according to TFA, it were some obscure brands (Suddenlink??) , that have fallen the most. Get a grip...

Re:The current administration emboldens them

[pots]

Look, I don't blame you for not wanting to go back and read through the thread in order to figure out what we're really talking about here. All that reading is for nerds, right? That's not you, you're too good for that. Let me help you out:

The person who started this thread, the one who you apparently really want to talk to even though it was me to whom you responded, that person made a claim that customer unhappiness was linked to governmental action on the grounds that the current administration had been acting to remove any consequences to bad behavior.

I responded to that, saying that the current administration can't be held solely responsible for those actions because this has now become a generalized GOP goal. And then I gave the example of the net neutrality vote in the senate to show that removing these barriers to bad behaviour had broad GOP support.

Then you came along and said that because there hadn't been any well-publicized net neutrality violations in the last month, at least not sufficiently publicized that you had heard of them, this meant that net neutrality couldn't possibly have anything to do with customer dissatisfaction. In fact, later on you referred to this as "proof beyond any doubt."

... Which tells me that you have an absurdly low barrier for what constitutes "proof," but anyway: in order to demonstrate just one of the faults in this logic I gave another example that it wasn't necessary for ISPs to violate net neutrality rules at all, whether those violations were well-publicized or not, in order for legislation on this to make people unhappy.

Note that at this point we have two given possibilities for why people are unhappy with ISPs. The first given by the parent at the start of this thread, in which the ISPs are emboldened by the actions of "the administration" (really the GOP) and so feel that they don't need to respect their customers. And the second given by me as a counter-example to your claim that people can only be unhappy about the state of net neutrality if they are responding to an event that you have heard of.

Of course, at no point did I claim that this second example was the real reason why people in general are unhappy with the ISPs. Though it is certainly the reason why I am unhappy with the ISPs.

Now we have you declaring that I am an authoritarian and the you are a libertarian (implying that those are distinct groups) and stating that no one outside of those groups cares about net neutrality even though, as I said above, net neutrality has wide bipartisan support among voters. At least this time you give something to back up your claim, though your assertion is that Verizon in particular must bear the brunt of peoples' ire over network neutrality because, I guess, everyone who wants a neutral internet will necessarily make the leap of blaming this on Ajit Pai (instead of "the administration," as above, or the GOP), and then these people will all know that his former employer was Verizon, and then these people will all blame his former employer, and then this blame will manifest as dissatisfaction. And because people are unhappy with Verizon, but not as unhappy as they are with some other ISPs, this then means that people don't care about net neutrality.

You know what? As ridiculous as that is, I don't care. That was never the point, it never mattered. It was just a counter example to a stupid bit of faulty logic. You can have that if you want.

Re:The current administration emboldens them GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

its posts like these that make me wonder what is wrong with people? what causes this slimy behavior? what is wrong with the world?

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

In the world of Amazon and one-click ordering, everyone expects everything to be dead-simple and dirt-cheap. This causes decreases in satisfaction with existing services without any measurable decline in quality. People are spoiled.

Not to worry

[Waffle Iron]

This problem is almost fixed: Without the albatross of net neutrality hanging on their shoulders, the ISPs have been freed up to focus like a laser on customer satisfaction. In a few short months, your ISP will be pampering you like royalty!

Business Class

[DatbeDank]

I work from home and couldn't take how unreliable home class internet is.

Now shelling out for business class. 100mbps is nice, but the $115 bill after the year long introductory rate ends will hurt. At least I get free cloud hosting and a 20gb Linux web server to play sysadmin.

Re:Business Class

[drinkypoo]

Now shelling out for business class. 100mbps is nice, but the $115 bill after the year long introductory rate ends will hurt. At least I get free cloud hosting and a 20gb Linux web server to play sysadmin.

Oh, you poor, POOR BABY. For a disturbing percentage of Americans, the only options are WISP or Satellite. The WISP I'm moving away from (Digital Path) is wholly incompetent on all levels, and has been charging me $99/mo for 6/1. Now I'm moving to satellite, which is pretty much the same story except with an assload of latency in the bargain.

Not enough competition

[thule]

It used to be that you could dialup whatever ISP you wanted. If you didn't like them, cancel them, dial up another. It was great, but the old copper just can't handle high speed.

At the local level, cities need to allow more competition. The current, local, regulation doesn't cultivate competition for last mile services. There is not much the FCC can do about that.

The old model of granting a single cable company to provide service in a city just doesn't hold up. The what is the solution? Pulling coax/fiber costs money (just ask Google). The grant of exclusivity made sure the company would make their investment back. Maybe a model would be that a city would grant exclusivity to two or more infrastructure companies. The infrastructure companies only sell their services to ISP's. The ISP's can use the infrastructure company that works best for them and customer can choose the ISP that they like. This would be closer to what happened in the days of dialup.

Re:Not enough competition

[sjames]

It's not the cities any more. Many if not most welcome multiple providers, In those places where there is more than one, the providers have privately marked out territories in order to not compete.

It's looking like it's going to requite a split-up like was done to AT&T. Once they were forced to allow alternative LD services to connect, LD rates dropped overnight.

Splitting things into a tightly regulated last mile service (or perhaps make last mile a municiple service), content, and other services should work well. It worked in the '90s when anyone could get a few phone lines and a T and become an ISP. Just make sure the last mile can reach a choice of colo centers and watch the fur fly.

Re:Not enough competition

[AHuxley]

The USA needs to replace its paper insulated wireline networks.
That needs the freedom in invest in some parts of a city that can pay back for that network investment.
Under the federal NN rules every part of that city would have to have an equal network upgrade.
So the poorest communities would get new networks. A network in a poor community that would never make a profit.
Everything is just left as is and sold as a NN ready network. No investment needed. But its all NN.
The networks get slower and slower.
Its not the ISP. The networks are getting beyond the data speeds of POTS.
Allow innovative and investment ready parts of the USA to build their own new community networks without federal NN rules to hold new investment back.

Re:Not enough competition

[BronsCon]

And by not investing in our poor communities, we ensure that they remain poor communities. Then, as those poor communities get overcrowded, they begin to sprawl, slowly engulfing the more affluent communities that, quite often, immediately border them. Suddenly, you stop seeing network upgrades because, though it was an affluent area when you moved there, you now live in a poor community. So, what do you do? Move elsewhere?

And in 20 years, when every affluent community has had its value driven down because the community next door became a "poor" community and brought with it an increase in crime, there will be no more affluent communities, just poor communities which don't see network upgrades.

Of course, that will be bullshit, nothing more than an excuse trumpeted by the network provider [SIC (and probably Comcast, as they seem to be buying everyone lately)], though the general decline of our society as a direct result of letting poor communities remain poor is very real.

Re:Not enough competition

[AHuxley]

A private network company cannot just take its money and invest in a poor city that will never pay back for the work done.
Then commit to a government that it will look after and upgrade the network.
For POTS and a broadband rate that has to get faster and faster. So the poor wont slip into internet poverty.
The money would run out.
Then what? Ask for a government loan to construct the network in poor areas? At what rate? Should a city take on that risk?
Do poor people pay a lot for internet? Do they use existing wireless services more?
Would poor people change from a set price wireless service they can use on the move to a city backed network service?
Set up a community broadband that any ISP can connect to and sell its services on?
Ask for a direct government payment for every "poor" home connected?
Ask for government support for every "poor" home that needs a faster new network?
Set the price low so more people can pay for the service and try to catch up with many more consumers paying small amount every month?

Re:Not enough competition

[Agripa]

The old model of granting a single cable company to provide service in a city just doesn't hold up. The what is the solution? Pulling coax/fiber costs money (just ask Google). The grant of exclusivity made sure the company would make their investment back. Maybe a model would be that a city would grant exclusivity to two or more infrastructure companies. The infrastructure companies only sell their services to ISP's. The ISP's can use the infrastructure company that works best for them and customer can choose the ISP that they like. This would be closer to what happened in the days of dialup.

Service at the customer distribution level can be fungible. Let the cities maintain the local internet infrastructure like they do water and power and provide last mile access to the ISPs.

Letting multiple ISPs of the same type or even different type if they are wired compete at the local level is a big problem. Lookup the stories about cities which mandated that multiple utility providers build competing physical networks.

Re:Not enough competition

[BronsCon]

You seem to have missed the point, I was talking about more than just internet service. At any rate, you are absolutely right: "A private network company cannot just take its money and invest in a poor city that will never pay back for the work done. Then commit to a government that it will look after and upgrade the network." Except that this requires that we ignore all of the times ISPs have made that very commitment to various governments; isn't the State of New York currently suing an ISP over this very issue?

So, I guess I was being somewhat generous when I said you're right, as they can and do make those commitments, even though we all know they are unsustainable. Of course, the contracts in which those commitments are made forbid local and state governments from implementing any form of municipal broadband, as well, so... While your little municipal broadband idea is sound, it isn't legally feasible in most poor neighborhoods because the city or state has already signed an agreement stating that they won't compete with [major ISP] in exchange for [.major ISP] building and maintaining a network serving all residents equally. What's missing is [major ISP] fulfilling their end of the bargain, but you had best believe they'll sue the city and win if the city, noting that [major ISP] is in violation of the agreement, takes any steps to remedy the situation. Spend 30 seconds on Google looking for references to Comcast and AT&T suing to stop muni broadband deployments, it happens all the fucking time and they win consistently despite the fact that the agreement that allows them to block it should be null and void due to their own noncompliance.

In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick from

[Anonymous Coward]

In spite of living in Keene, New Hampshire, a small town of just 23,000 people I have six choices for high speed internet of which I believe five can provide me with fiber: Sovernet Communications, WiValley Fiber, BayRing Communications, FirstLight, Comcast, and Fairpoint. I moved to Keene, New Hampshire because of the awesome freedom movement (Shire Society, Free State Project, etc) here and it's amazing how many technical people have moved from around the world too, but there were side benefits like this fiber thing. You can also get faster speeds then below... much faster... in some areas form what I understand, but you do have to be careful, but it's not available (cheaply) everywhere, even in Keene. I got lucky as I'm on a main road, but others aren't and unlicensed poles ultimately (government theft) increase the $3,000 installation cost to as much as $17,000 as a result (or have fun paying $500 / month).

I'll say one thing for sure- price of fiber here ain't cheap- but it sure beats the competition in terms of latency and up bandwidth. Depending on where you live you can get installation for anywhere between $3,000 USD and $17,000 USD. I was fortunate and it only cost $3,000 USD. Monthly I pay $150 USD for 25/25 fiber connection. I should be able to get 100Mbps and eventually it'll probably be much more significant as our fiber infrastructure is expanded. The new line-up looks like 100/100 is what will be available shortly at what I'm imaging is $150/month. ADSL service is super cheap here (up to 25Mbps down, maybe 1Mbps up I'd imagine). Cable is probably closer to 80Mbps late at night when nobody else is on (and probably a fraction of that when the kids get home from school). Up bandwidth on cable sucks though at 4Mbps when nobody else is on.

1 world, space link, etc are going to have fun

[WindBourne]

Seriously, these ISPs are going to make it easy for the up and coming space connections.

Lack of perceived value

[iamacat]

What people really want at this point is more consistent/reliable Internet, not another dozen of mindless non-interactive TV channels. If cable/phone companies don't up their game soon, they will be replaced by municipal WiFi/broadband or upcoming wireless services. There is room for technological progress which people would accept even if it means higher prices/traffic prioritization. Imagine good VR entertainment with paid actors. But no frills connectivity with predictable prices and quality is also valuable.

Re:WTF?

[PopeRatzo]

We're currently enjoying peace and prosperity, for the first time in decades.

Deficits - up
National debt - up
gas prices - up
school shootings - up
mass shooting deaths - way up

The cable monopolies are a *result* of regulation

[Solandri]

The cable companies are not natural monopolies which need to be broken up by anti-trust suits. They were given their monopoly status by local governments, often in exchange for concessions like guarantees to offer service to 9x% of homes in an area, or (in the case of the previous city I lived in) straight kickbacks (x$ per home) paid to the city's general fund.

Sorry, but this is one problem caused by too much government regulation. The local governments correctly realized that allowing anyone and everyone to offer cable service would result in the telephone poles becoming unsightly and underground utility conduits becoming clogged. So they wisely limited who could provide cable service in their jurisdiction. But somewhere, somewhen, the wheels fell off - they got drunk with their own power and started handing out monopolies to the highest bidder. That's an issue the pro-regulation crowd seems to be blind to - government corruption resulting in regulations which results in net harm to society.

Re: In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick

[bn-7bc]

That seems rather pricy my current ISP sells 250Mbps/250Mbps ftth for arround USD 92/mounth (NOK 749) no tv pakage requiered beond the first year (you get the install free if you sign a yeats contract for internet +basic tv) finaly something beond health care and edu where norway is cheaper than the us. This is an un mearered connectin and they donâ(TM)t (to my knwolege) do any throttling. I hope to us gets better and cheaper internet as time goes by, you need somerhing to need happy about, and DCdoes not seeam to provide much hope for that. This post was nor meant as braging just as a point of comparison. Have a nice day

Re: In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick

[bn-7bc]

Ugh sorry abbout themangked apostrephes, why is skashdot the only site that has problems with them (the only site I use anyway)? If i get significant downtime hat is the isps fault, I get half the suoscriotion fir thst month creditid on nex months bill (they call it the allways online guarentie, and no crappy isp sanctioned router, the fiber modem (more of a media converter raly) hands of an ethernet port beond tnat any other network equipment is up to the costumer (thdy inckude ther own router, but the one they sent me has stayed in its box

Re:WTF?

[mi]

We have reached the point where it is no longer possible to discern the difference between sarcasm/satire and honest opinion.

Poe's Law

Re:WTF?

[mi]

school shootings - up
mass shooting deaths - way up

Volcano eruptions - WAAAAAY up...

Re:The current administration emboldens them GNAA

[null etc.]

The answer is right there in the post:

Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason.

Well.....

[MerlTurkin]

....DUH!

Re: The cable monopolies are a *result* of regulat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an issue the pro-regulation crowd seems to be blind to - government corruption resulting in regulations which results in net harm to society.

Blind to a problem specifically legislated against almost three decades ago in the Cable Act of the nineties. Is that your final answer?

Solandri, why does it feel like you are detached from reality? Is your partisan adherence so dogmatic that you don't even realize your own political party is the one passing laws preventing local governments from providing means for competition after extensive lobbying by telecommunications corporations through the state legislatures they have gerrymandered into their own control? Or maybe you forget it is your political party doing it at the national level?

Seriously, you try to talk out of three sides of your mouth. You denounce government on all sides, ignore corporation malfeasances and seek to get everybody else to believe 2+2=7.

Solandri, we aren't blind. You are hallucinating. Stop with the alternative facts.

Re:WTF?

[sound vision]

Hitler was a lot more effective at governing, and much more concerned and involved in the task than Trump is. There are some shallow ideological similarities in the way of ethnic purity, but the more relevant similarity is the purging of dissidents and the consolidation of power. If you're unaware of the steps being taken in that regard, you have some serious filter bubble problems to work out.
But, my analysis is that it's more likely you are aware, which makes it all the more rich that you mention "cognitive dissonance" in the same post.

Re:WTF?

[zifn4b]

Let's get the facts straight first.

When did deficits start going up substantially? With the beginning of the "War on Terror"
When did the national debt go up substantially? See previous question answer
When did gas prices go up substantially? 2006
(BONUS QUESTION) Why did gas prices go up in price shock fashion in 2006? OPEC artificially reduced supply in retaliation of the invasion of Iraq by the United States on the beginning of the "War on Terror" that was without just cause and without UN support
When did school shooting start going up? It started with the Columbine High School shooting which happened in 1999
When did "mass shooting deaths - way up" occur or more properly stated when did violent crime start increasing significantly? Violent crime has been gradually occurring since the onset of the The Great Recession because after being under substantial stress, anxiety and depressed some of the blue collar working class people that you probably don't even have any concept of blew a fuse and had a couple screws go loose.

Now that you have the facts, what do you have to say for yourself?

Re:WTF?

[PopeRatzo]

When did deficits start going up substantially?

Under Ronald Reagan, 20 years before the War on Terror

When did the national debt go up substantially?

See previous answer.

When did gas prices go up substantially?

1973

When did "mass shooting deaths - way up" occur or more properly stated when did violent crime start increasing significantly?

Violent crime is way lower than it was during the Reagan administration. School shootings are up, however, which is the result of the influence of the NRA, gamergate and Trump. There is a reason school shooters tend overwhelmingly to be white boys who like video games, AR-15s and Trump.

Re:Molon Labe,sedition,treason, lies by gun grabbe

[PopeRatzo]

you know, pope fuck shit, every time i read your fucking lies and the rest of you gun grabbing lying fuckers i make it a point to train another person with a firearm.

And by "train another person with a firearm", you mean, "practice in your mom's garage with your replica light sabre".

Now assume the position you poseur. Internet tough guys like you are a dime a dozen.

Stop with this shit. you are an EVIL, vile fucking lying soviet seditious traitor. and i pray every day you pieces of shit start the civil war so we can bury you and your cancerous weakness and your disgusting progeny in the dirt half way to hell where you belong. FUCK YOU.

You've been skipping your meds again, haven't you?

Re:Molon Labe,sedition,treason, lies by gun grabbe

[PopeRatzo]

mock all you want.

Thank you. I believe I will.

im armed to the teeth, have 4 kids to defend,

You realize that you're statistically more likely to kill one of your kids than you are to "defend" them? And defend them from what, exactly?

and i believe in individual liberty and have faith when i meet my maker ill do just fine.

Your maker just called and said you're fucking nuts. He also said that when you meet him, He's going to give you a smack in the head.

prepare for war.

Yeah, you sound like the kind of guy that should be "armed to the teeth".

Re:WTF?

[zifn4b]

When did deficits start going up substantially?

Under Ronald Reagan, 20 years before the War on Terror

I was referring to the most recent deficit run after Bill Clinton balanced the Federal Budget before leaving office in 2000. The previous deficit run ups are not relevant as Bill Clinton had corrected those issues.

Re:WTF?

[zifn4b]

Violent crime is way lower than it was during the Reagan administration.

While that particular fact is true there has been sharp increase in 2017-2018. Here is the evidence. I don't attribute that to Trump taking presidency. I attribute that to an exhausted American population that has been weathering enormous stress and anxiety to the The Great Recession and getting fed up with it. That's also why a populist president was elected. There is a populism backlash not just in the United States but in Western Europe in response to Globalization and the loss of jobs/good jobs. Harvard University has lectures on youtube about this. Check your facts. Further evidence exists at Gallup. Check Congress's approval ratings for the past 10 years and also check the top issues. Economy is usually #1 or #2. That means America is dissatisfied with the way the Federal Government is handling economic issues.

Re:Molon Labe,sedition,treason, lies by gun grabbe

[zifn4b]

You realize that you're statistically more likely to kill one of your kids than you are to "defend" them? And defend them from what, exactly?

You realize that you're evidence of certain types of statistics about irrational humans. Thanks for helping confirm them. You suffer from at the very least, the Dunning Kruger Effect. But you will say no because you lack the intellectual capability to assess your own competency in a domain. In other words, you'll argue by any means necessary why you're right and everyone else is wrong and that will be the sole point of discussion therefore it is pointless to converse with you. This is also a form of narcissism because you've made yourself the center of attention.

Let me ask you this (I'm regretting this already), if you are so sure of how right you are, why do you need to compel others to confirm your beliefs? If you were absolutely certain, you wouldn't need other people's approval in this manner. It seems contradictory but what do I know...

Re:In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick f

[Bengie]

Meh. I pay $40/m to 150/150 business class fiber in the Midwest, with a $20/m intro. Free installation. For $150/m, I could get the 500/500 business plan that includes Hulu Live-tv plus a free Roku stick. No contract.

$3,000 to run fiber is crazy expensive. The general going rate is about $300-$600/house in bulk. This is why the local ISP ran fiber to every house in our town, regardless if they were a customer. Bulk rates for contracted work is much cheaper than calling them on demand.

I also love the latency of fiber. 0.014ms to my ISP's speedtest server, 6ms to Chicago. Can even upload and download 149Mb/s for hours on end without affecting my latency or loss. 149.9Mb/s of smooth UDP streaming with zero loss at 9pm, 150Mb/s show a small bit transient loss, and 150.1Mb/s shows a constant low loss. Even did a 1Gb/s 64byte UDP iperf to a remote target. Something like 84.999% loss, as expected. Even with ~85% loss, 20ms-40ms latency. Fair Queuing AQMs are the best.