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?

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!

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: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.