People Still Don't Like Their Cable Companies, ConsumerReports' Telecom Survey Finds (consumerreports.org)

Larger cable providers once again take a beating for perceived value -- even when it comes to bundled plans. ConsumerReports: Unhappy with your pay-TV company? You're not alone. Dissatisfaction with the perceived value of pay-TV service was once again high among the 176,000 members who participated in Consumer Reports' latest telecommunications survey. When we asked for feedback on their experiences with pay TV, home internet, home telephone service, and bundled plans, they shared their displeasure. In fact, most of the larger cable companies -- Optimum (Cablevision), Comcast, and Spectrum (Charter, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks) -- earned low scores in multiple categories, settling into the bottom half of the 25 providers in CR's new telecom service ratings.

Only 38 percent of pay-TV subscribers were highly satisfied with their service, meaning they were "very" or "completely" happy with the offerings. Armstrong, a smaller cable company that operates in Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, earned the second-place slot behind Google Fiber, in part due to favorable scores for technical support, reliability, and customer service. Verizon and the two satellite-TV companies -- AT&T's DirecTV and Dish Network -- also rated better than Cox Communications, Comcast, Spectrum, and Optimum.

Top-rated EPB, a municipal broadband service run as a public utility in Chattanooga, Tenn., was one of the few bright spots for internet service. It was the only company to receive a top mark for value. It also got top marks for speed and reliability. Google Fiber was a close second in the ratings, the only other company to get a favorable mark for value.

Nearly three-quarters of the survey respondents who have a bundled plan -- TV, internet, and phone -- said they got a special promotional price when they signed up. And 45 percent were still enjoying that rate when they answered our survey.

Comments

Breaking News!

[forkfail]

Water Is Wet!

The problem is too many channels

[Vermonter]

The cable companies are under this false impression that it was a good idea to provide as many channels as possible. My biggest issue with TV now when I go somewhere that has cable, is it takes me a while to even find one of the channels I might want to watch. Maybe their idea what to increase the odds that a show you like is currently airing on one of the 800 channels, but in an age of on demand programming, this strategy is insufficient. The only saving grace for them now is to offer Netflix-style on demand programming for all their content.

Re:The problem is too many channels

[Jason Levine]

I'd argue that the problem is too little competition. Especially if you're relying on your cable company for Internet service. In most places, the local cable company is the only Internet access provider or one of two providers. And by "local", I mean "giant cable company who serves your area." Without meaningful competition, a company doesn't need to invest in customer service. After all, customer service costs money and customers have few, if any, other options. For example, Charter's Spectrum is the only wired Internet provider in my area. So even if I hate them (I'd definitely say I'm highly dissatisfied), I have no other options. I can reduce what I pay them by cutting the TV service cord and not having a home phone via them, but I'm still tethered to them by Internet service. They know this and can engage in whatever trickery they like knowing that I can't switch without significantly impacting my home Internet usage.

Now, if there were four or five different providers, then Spectrum would be forced to either give me good service or see their customers flee to Providers 2, 3, 4, or 5. The providers with good customer service would increase their customer base while the ones with bad customer service would either be forced to improve or go out of business.

This would also fix issues with TV service. Providers with good TV service would thrive while those stuck in the past would continually lose customers.

Re:The problem is too many channels

[Actually, I do RTFA]

That wasn't the cable companies, it was the providers. Disney said, "If you want ESPN, you also have to carry these other 30 channels". Because they were all owned by Disney. And more Disney channels means it's more likely you'll watch a Disney-owned channel.

Re:The problem is too many channels

[sjames]

That's why the last mile should be a public resource.

Re: The problem is too many channels

[peragrin]

Which is why we need local loop unbundling so the last mile fiber and wire can be hooked up by lots of people.

Not disimmialar from electricity. I pay one company for distribution and another for usage.

I am also not againist usage metering as long as the meter is publicly visible to me, and all data is the same. Att Comcast all don't count cettian services againist your data use

hidden fees and some times forced hardware rent

[Joe_Dragon]

hidden fees and some times forced hardware rent.

Comcast may force people to rent there gateway when they move to IPTV.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

[erp_consultant]

Think of all the industries with shitty customer service ratings:

1) Cable
2) Cellphones
3) Utilities
4) Airlines
5) Car dealers

What do they all have in common? They lack any real competition. In every case the customer has little or no choice of their service provider. With airlines the choice is fly or take the train or drive. In most cases the alternatives are impractical. With car dealers, unless you are buying a Tesla, you have to work through a dealer network. In most cases that is actually protected by law. The only viable alternative is to buy a used car or don't drive.

It's not much better with cellphones. Service generally sucks, service sucks, coverage sucks and it's expensive. At one time I remember rumors of Apple entering the cell service market. It turned out not to be true but I wish they had.

It's a little different with cable companies. With traditional cable you have the traditional oligopoly. But there is a viable alternative - cut the cord. Get an antenna, NetFlix and maybe Hulu or Amazon and you don't need the cable companies anymore. The cable companies know this and respond in typical fashion - by trying to punish their customers for leaving. Good luck with that strategy boys. Meanwhile their customer service ratings continue to stink and people are cutting the cord at an ever increasing rate.

That's unpossible!

[Nidi62]

Top-rated EPB, a municipal broadband service run as a public utility in Chattanooga, Tenn., was one of the few bright spots for internet service. It was the only company to receive a top mark for value. It also got top marks for speed and reliability.

But we've been told there is no way a government service could give better performance at a lower price than a private company! Fake news!

Re:I do. LOVE FIOS. Love. Love. Love.

[Oswald McWeany]

Spectrum is always down in my area too! When you live in an area with precisely 1 fast broadband provider (which is common across the US); and you cut cable TV only to find a few years later you're now paying the same for internet that you once paid for cable- because they use internet consumers to subsidise their cable TV customers... yeah, I hate my cable company ISP. I hate monopolies in general because they can do precisely this... abuse the consumer.