Why Americans Loathe Cable Companies 229
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."
Google Fiber (Score:2, Insightful)
If only google fiber rolled out across the country, then these "providers" would shit their pants as they became irrelevant and insolvent.
Re:Google Fiber (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google Fiber (Score:4, Insightful)
But this monopoly would be benevolent. Keep drinking the kool-aid
Why would it be a monopoloy? It'd just be another competitor. We're already seeing providers like AT&T dropping prices and increasing service in regions where Google Fiber is competing.
Re:Google Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
What "chance" are you taking with google fiber, exactly? With a google app, yes you may come to depend on it and when it goes away there is no exact replacement which can perfectly integrate as a drop in replacement. However, with google internet service, if it goes away, what sort of integration would you have where you couldn't just drop in a replacement internet service? And when google discontinues an app, nobody is going to want to buy it up and google probably isn't going to want to sell the code anyw
Re:Google Fiber (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So...don't leave Comcast or AT&T for a competitor, because that competitor might quit and might sell their infrastructure to Comcast or AT&T. Despite the fact that Comcast/AT&T already have their own infrastructure - after all, Google was a competitor.
Methinks you need to do your last sentence a little more.
Re:Google Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Google Fiber (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why cable companies need to be treated as utilities. Comcast should be forced to provide service to any customer in an exclusive franchise area.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on your community. Philadelphia owns their water and natural gas [bizjournals.com] infrastructure, but over the years they have taken the profits to plug budget holes rather than reinvest in the infrastructure. The result is something of a crisis - the natural gas pipelines are borderline dangerous and their current capital plan would take 66 years to replace them.
On the other hand, out here in the 'burbs we have privately run water, electric, and gas. Only the sewer is run by the township. And guess which one was
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Fiber TV is the same price
Re:Google Fiber (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I HATE this about the phone, cable, and internet providers. I wish they would stop assuming that I am some retard. I did the assessment, I know what you offer, and I personally found it lacking.
They came up with some dollar value of their service(s) and it is asinine & disrespectful that they think we must agree to their determination. Clearly I am already pissed at the provider, the least they can do is quickly accept that we don't have a deal and make it a smooth separation and try again later
Re:Google Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: It won't happen (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! The current telecoms could have always done it, they just never had a need to. The "Avalon" community here will get Google Fiber. But the city of Alpharetta that it is in will not. Multiple 100+ house hold communities and apartment complexes within 2 miles of the community will not get Google. Thus all those have heard nothing from Comcast or AT&T's DSL about better service.
Re: It won't happen (Score:2)
Really, they could have offered gigabit fibre-based internet before GPON or Active Ethernet became commercially viable to deploy (which was a year or two before Google Fiber launched)? Or before it was developed?
Haggling for Rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just it will come with a 15 year contract and a $4,000 early termination fee.
And as soon as the majority in the area sign their names, service will tank.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd take that deal as long as their was a competing service. The minute their service tanked, I would sign with the competition, document their non performance and terminate the contract with cause.
Re: (Score:2)
It was really degrading to have to go through so many hoops to save some $$ but when I look at my kids and think about what $1200 can buy them, I guess it was worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you listen to every Libertarian, they will tell you that the free market will fix this. When this is actual a proof that the free market doesn't exist and never will.
Exactly. The US has a sick and twisted version of capitalism that is poison. It uses laws and government regulations to pick and choose which industries/businesses get favored as opposed to the market. Usually based on how much they donate bribe a congressman/senator or two. It's because if we lived in a truly free market the market may not choose their product.
That's why the food industry resists GMO labeling and fought things like labeling TransFat and the new Added Sugar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why the food industry resists GMO labeling
Perhaps that is because all of the GMO labeling is an attempt at scare tactics as there is no scientific evidence of harm. When you can produce any kind of indication of a possible harm from GMO, rather than the equivalent of anti-vax arguments, perhaps there will be a reason to have markings on packaging. Until then, you are just trying to put scare quotes on food packaging for no reason at all.
Re: Haggling for Rates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Should we also add labels "may contain dihydrogen monoxyde"? That has about as valid a use as adding GMO labels.
In all honesty, if you want GMO labels, you might as well add them to ever piece of food grown, as there isn't a food plant that hasn't been genetically modified in some way. Or are you trying to say that gene splicing done before the genetics revolution is somehow not the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Do you refuse to drink French wine because they used genetic modification techniques t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone was able to splice spider genes into vegetables until mad scientists got involved. That's what bothers people. That could never happen in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
So where is said food entering the supply chain?
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with if there is any harm from the food or not. Some people do not like the idea of putting "franken-food" in their bodies. And we do have the right to know and make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies. And you'll note I listed two other examples: Trans Fat and Added Sugar which we do know is unhealthy yet the food lobby resisted/resists those labels too. It is to protect corporate interests and old business models from the free market.
Re: (Score:2)
So, did you stop drinking French wine when they "franken-food"ed the grape vines to fight the grape blight?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
I don't particularly care about Trans Far marking, it has been on food since 2003 in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
As far as added sugar, how is that not on the label? Who cares if half the sugar in your apple juice is added sugar instead of from the apples? The amount of sugar is on the label.
GMO labeling = FUD, stop spreading it.
If you don't want to eat GM
Re: (Score:2)
"Some people do not like the idea of putting "franken-food" in their bodies."
So any genetics label on products should include all genetic techniques. Let every package say "Genetically modified with Mendelian technology!"
And should we even allow food labels that actually harm the environment? My unfavorite is that "Wild Caught" that the unenlightened look for on their fish. Since ocean fish depletion is one of the most easily provable impacts man has on natural systems, people who value an ethic of sustaina
Re: Haggling for Rates (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you say isn't counter to cap
Re: (Score:2)
The only people that have claimed that 'the end goal for a company is monopoly' were Marx and Engels.
They have been wrong about _every single one_ of there economic predictions. Get your information from someone else.
I suggest Adam Smith. Collusion and monopoly are issues that need regulation for functional markets. But monopoly is mostly self fixing, as soon as you extract monopoly pricing you attract new competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
The cable companies probably don't count a lost customer as a statistic unless the customer goes with a competing service. They'll instead consider that this person is not a part of the market.
Comcast Sucks (Score:2, Informative)
I just moved to a new city. In my old city, I had Charter. I was paying ~$60/month for 30 meg service but my speed tests would show I could sometimes get 50 meg service. Unfortunately it one occasions, it would drop to 0.01 meg service.
In my new city, I have to use Comcast. Where there closest to the same price as my old service is only 6megs. Speed tests show the actual is 7 megs and pretty consistent. I get the Xfinity cable modem to find to my dismay that it's got a useless router build in. Ok I go into
Re:Comcast Sucks (Score:5, Funny)
" 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.
Re: (Score:3)
So now I need to fax the receipt to them because they have never heard of this thing called email.
response [google.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Call them to have it removed. They can find no record of me returning the equipment.
At which point you tell them it's their fault for losing track and if they keep charging you, you'll report them to your bank. I had someone over charge me before, quick call to my bank, not only did the bank refund me the money immediately, but they went after the other company free of charge for me.
Re: (Score:2)
The only other viable alternative for decent broadband then is Comcast.. between a rock and a hard place, essentially.
In regards to cable TV, Comcast service has gone down the toilet. 150 channels of crap, and while I need to time it to be sure, it seems like the commercials
Because it's blatantly obvious you are screwed (Score:2)
And you know there is nothing you can do about it because, they bought the whores in your city and state government ?
I say this as I am about to start talking to comcast about why I have been billed for three modems I never had and where the credit is for my interrupted service.
Fast fix (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Fast fix (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the problem here isn't reading but comprehension.
Voter initative [wikipedia.org].
No options. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What it comes down to is that the monopolized system has hurt the customers (surprise, surprise).
Yep, this comment is what I came for. What it comes down to is that corrupt public servants have fucked us over. We have more control over every other utility than we do over internet, and frankly we need more control over those.
Re:No options. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need a municipal ISP; but I'd be delighted to have my municipality run fiber to a peering point with the same competence that they've shown with handling my utility hookups. Once you get the last mile out of the way, competition becomes something more than a quaint theory again, so you can let the market take it from there; but as long as the last mile is, at best, a duopoly, and in the hands of incumbents who don't really have incentives aligned with the good of the internet; we have a problem.
Re:No options. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the right way to look at it: we don't need "ISP as utility", we need "last mile as utility".
A local utility that just maintained the pipe to my house would be a great idea, and let any ISP who wanted compete for my business from there. There are a few places in the US where some quirk still makes independent ISPs possible, and those guys are great. Anything that gets us back to the possibility of independent ISPs in addition to competition between the big guys will fix the remaining issues.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it was their intent - it's just how things progressed.
In return for getting a monopoly in a town, the cable company set up local access channels, gave free cable TV to schools and town offices, likely gave free Internet to all those areas too. The money to pay those things needs to come from somewhere - either you pay more taxes or you pay more on the cable bill. We're now at the point where all these things have been established for years and the cable companies have contracts with towns gr
Re: (Score:3)
I can't understand how why anyone chooses satellite service for Internet access. If they do they are somewhere so remote that Verizon does not have LTE service, they havent looked in years, or they are stupid.
Verizon's "Installed LTE" (fixed antenna on the outside of the building) is price and speed competitive with the sat com providers has essentially the same usage caps, without the latency an weather related problems.
My guess is Verizon and probably AT&T (why the hell does AT&T not have a simi
Re: (Score:2)
Now consider the cable company. You want to add service? No problem--you can do that by yourself online. Want to cancel something or downgrade it? You *have* to call. Then you find that that part of the system is understaffed and it takes over an hour to do. Oh, and the cancellation is only open from 9-5, so I have to call during work. I kept a service at an old home for months (still owned it) after because I didn't have time to call to deal with it; only $20 a month for really cheap internet that was meant to tide over during a transition, but it shows how much hassle canceling can be.
Comcast was particularly evil about cancelling-- my mom was in competitive territory where she could have Comcast or WOW, and had signed up for a Comcast deal where she had no end of equipment trouble, and they would send her random stuff that she hadn't ordered. She died before the contract ran out and when I was managing her estate, they demanded that I come in to their office with the death certificate and letters of authority and wouldn't accept it by mail or give me a mailing address when I talked to t
Re: (Score:2)
We have a ton of monopolies in place: the electric company, the gas, the water. No one complains about any of those. But those services are regulated much better and are much easier to deal with. I've found that the power company does a great job getting stuff fixed as soon as they can.
Now consider the cable company. You want to add service? No problem--you can do that by yourself online. Want to cancel something or downgrade it?
Actually, where I live the electric company is NOT a monopoly. Once company maintains the infrastructure, but several companies compete on rates and features (free nights or weekends, fixed monthly rates, etc...) to be your actual provider. It is much the way DSL used to be when the phone companies had to allow third party providers. I can pick the plan that's best for my usage patterns and we get great customer service. Where I lived before the garbage company was NOT a monopoly and they were falling
REVENGE! (Score:5, Funny)
suck it cable companies, we dont need you anymore, we just need internet access and-DAMMIT. well played cable companies, well played.
Re: (Score:2)
suck it cable companies, we dont need you anymore, we just need internet access and-DAMMIT. well played cable companies, well played.
I decided I didn't need the TV service from Verizon any more, so I called about cancelling that and just keeping Internet. It turns out, that's only a $10 a month savings ("Well you don't get the bundle discounts."). I do watch the local broadcast stations, but that package is $12.99, so I would actually pay MORE to cut my channels to just the local broadcast stations. What a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the bundling drives me crazy. I get constant ads from Charter saying "get internet, tv, and phone for $30 each!" But I'm paying $60 for internet alone. Frankly, when their advertising sets $30 in my mind as the appropriate price for each of their services, I can't help but be ripped off paying twice that much. In other words, their advertising is making me angry with them.
I have zero interest in phone. I've asked about internet + TV, but for some reason that's $110, rather than $90, which isn't just a
Re: (Score:2)
Adding TV service to my already existing Internet service with Verizon cost just the rental fee for the cablebox/cablecard. That surprised me, but their bundling makes it all work. It would cost the same again if I added phone service as well. I am not sure why this is the case, but it appears to just be the way it works for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually pay MORE to cut my channels to just the local broadcast stations. What a scam.
Try an antenna to get your broadcast stations. If you're in a region with decent signal strength, you will be happily surprised at what your TV can bring in... for FREE!
You can even re-provision the coax cable you use now for the cable service to hook up the antenna!
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually pay MORE to cut my channels to just the local broadcast stations. What a scam.
Try an antenna to get your broadcast stations. If you're in a region with decent signal strength, you will be happily surprised at what your TV can bring in... for FREE!
You can even re-provision the coax cable you use now for the cable service to hook up the antenna!
Not really worth the hassle, considering I'd be paying almost the same thing to Verizon anyway. And I tried the antenna before, many years ago. It works for a few of the local channels, but some either won't tune or are so full of pauses and artifacts they aren't watchable. Easier just to keep the bundle. Plus, I'd end up spending the ~ $10 I would save anyway so the wife can watch her HGTV shows on Hulu Plus...
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you got it right. Antennas are hit and miss. I'm one of the lucky ones because I live in an area with pretty decent coverage, and my coax cable that used to feed to Comcast goes through my attic where the splitters are. When I dumped cable, instead of hooking up an antenna right next to the TV, I patched the antenna into the coax in the attic, figuring the height would improve reception and I could place it wherever. That did the trick. With decent coax, an indoor antenna can be placed anyw
I LIKE Cable Companies (Score:2)
To date, I've not had a bad experience w/ cable companies. Not Comcast, when I had it 10 years ago, not TWC (which I got due to moving) and now, not Charter. Although in Charter's case, the basic internet package starts at 60Mbps, which surprised me when I moved to an area that doesn't have TWC, since I had gone w/ a TWC package of 15Mbps.
If one is talking cable TV here, I don't care: I hate most of the programming and so haven't bothered buying a TV. I watch YouTube stuff on my tablets.
That's the easy question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's why do local government's loathe their citizens? After all, they're the ones who are, almost always, signing exclusive contracts with these companies to provide a local monopoly of services while forcing unnecessary additional costs (local government access via cable TV) and franchise fees to fund them.
PHB + PUC + Low turnout elections = disaster. (Score:2)
People have always complained by all PUC industries, sewage, water, electricity, landlines, streetcar/tramway/trolley companies ... But most of the other
source of frustration traceable to... (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix (Score:2)
They are just becoming another cable company. Rapidly.
the prices are getting beyond ridiculous (Score:2)
i grew up before we had cable and the extra channels were awesome at first. but with so much crap now in the basic tier including ESPN which a lot of sports fans don't even watch the prices too high. and lately everyone is adding a sports news channel or some other me too channel to the basic tier and asking for more money.
they have the extra streaming add ons for a lot of channels but they limit the episodes to a few at a time and it's a crazy system where you have to have the right TV provider.
TV should be free. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the many places thanks to the move to digital you can get all the networks for free but many people don't bother which I think is dumb. In many other locations the cable companies have changed the way TV stations work. I can get about 12 channels on my TV with a simple antenna. Only two are networks! The cost of entry is low but the major networks do not want to be in this OTA market because the cable companies have to pay to carry them now.
I think that the law should change so that cable companies only have to pay for the broadcast channels that customers can get with an antenna. TV used to be free and we need to go back to that. It is insane to pay for a TV with ads!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Free as in you do not pay for it. Kind of like those free newspapers full of ads.
Re: (Score:2)
The kicker is that you usually aren't allowed to mou
Not just in the USA (Score:2)
I was amused recently to hear an interview on the radio with the chief exec of Talk Talk (a UK telecoms company whose USP is "we're cheap!"), where she said how pleased she was because for the first time ever they hadn't come bottom in a customer support satisfaction survey.
Having experienced their customer service (my father has broadband from them - because they're cheap), I'm surprised they managed to move off the bottom slot, but then they do have fierce competition from BT.
Cable did it to themselves (Score:4)
Cable did it to themselves.
They figured out they could jack up prices with impunity. Then their content providers figured out all the cash they were bringing in, and jacked up their money (and carriage) demands, too. Cable largely didn't care because they knew they could just pass on these costs to their customers.
Now that they've bled the pig, it's squealing and getting its feed elsewhere.
How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two ways to do this.
The first approach is usually what you want when the technology is first being developed. When Edison championed DC power distribution and Westinghouse/Tesla pushed for AC
Start pushing for community Fiber in your area (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
With an anti-bufferbloat setup by the ISP, your ping never increases beyond 1ms, no matter the load. I've even DOS'd my connection to flood it, I got packetloss, but the pings never changed. They also do fair queuing, so saturation caused by Torrent prett
Yet, they spend millions in advertising... (Score:2)
Yet, they spend millions in advertising telling us why we should love them. Hey, Cable Companies, here's an idea. Instead of spending the millions/billions you'd spend on TV commericials, use that money instead to hire REAL LIVE HUMANS WHO SPEAK ENGLISH to answer the phone, and actually provide CUSTOMER SERVICE.
It's one thing to pay the highest rates in the world for TV and internet service, but it's another to know that I'm paying so much, and you're simply pocketing the money while your call center is in
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
To be fair, I discount inflation and it would be the same price if I was also a cable TV subscriber. Comcast brought that requirement
Reliability (Score:4, Insightful)
While I have many issues with ISPs that have been covered fairly well by other responses here, one issue that few have talked about is reliability of the service, and the ability to get it fixed when it breaks.
At least around here, it seems almost 1 out of every 2 people has some significant reliability problems with their Internet connectivity, and isn't sure how to fix them. When they call the ISP (whether it's cable, DSL, fiber, LTE, ..) the first thing they ask them is to reboot their modem and/or router and/or computer. When that doesn't fix it, the tech doesn't know what else to do. They often send out a guy to take a look, who'll say that your cable modem is shot, and have you get a replacement. If it's under warranty or owned by the cable company, sometimes that might be free; if you own the equipment and it's out of warranty, you have to put up for a new one.
But 8 times out of 10, replacing your modem / routers does not fix the problem. Nor does going from WiFi to ethernet -- another common "fix". Sure, WiFi has problems, but if your issue is actually with some part of the cable, especially if it's a part that's buried underground, it can be nearly impossible to convince the company that the problem is there, and moreover, to get them to dig it up and replace it.
I'm on a grandfathered unlimited LTE data plan as my primary Internet connection, now. Cellular towers are pretty reliable due to their centralized infrastructure and the number of users it would affect if they were having a problem. I've had a few persistent issues with my LTE connection that lasted for weeks, but each time, it magically went away after very little effort on my part, likely after they received hundreds of calls from other customers about the same problem, and had to send someone up the tower to fix it.
Those with landlines to the premises are in a much more difficult situation. The company is likely to pin the problem on hardware that is owned by you, or wiring that is installed within the walls of your house. They will not be willing to admit that the problem may lie with the line buried underground. Acknowledging that problem would effectively cause them to have to outlay a significant cost to a contractor to dig up and replace the cable, so instead, they treat each individual support call as a new incident, and forget all the history of your problem where you've diligently worked by process of elimination to determine that it must be something in the line.
I remember years ago when we used deduction to determine that our DSL problem must lie with the phone line beyond the premises of our house. We replaced all our devices, hooked up to ethernet instead of WiFi, and even completely replaced all the DSL filters and phone line wiring in our house. The problem persisted. But the tech support guys kept experiencing a case of amnesia; every time we called, despite trying to ask them to refer to previous tickets and things we'd already tried, they just wanted us to reboot our modem, over and over and over and over again, as if that would help. This would happen even if we got the same tech support person on multiple calls.
At work, a lot of people come to me for advice on problems they're having with tech at home. I don't know why they do it; they just do. I get my fair share of laptop problems; Windows won't boot; they have a virus; whatever. But the #1 most frequent problem I get is that their Internet is unreliable and drops out all the time. Occasionally I'll find that replacing their cable modem fixes the problem, but in many more cases, we narrow it down to the landline, or at least to an ONT or something exterior to their dwelling that isn't owned by the resident -- at which point, you're basically at a dead-end.
The willingness to address problems, and to refer to case history to eliminate potential sources of problems, is seemingly absent from nearly all ISP support employees. And you wonder why their ACSI score is low...
The repair thugs ended it for me. (Score:2)
Aside from scheduling repairs at a time convenient only for the repair guy, the last "technician" they sent out had obvious gang tattoos and seemed more interested in casing my house than repairing my cable, which he was unable to do (I ended up fixing the cable break in the attic later that day. Damn squirrels).
So, I turned off the cable. Still have U-Verse for Netflix, which is similarly awful (They tend to not tell you anything), but at least they've never sent anyone who I or my family might have to be
Comcast Scumbags (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but the content on local stations is available (eventually) on the Roku. And you can always go to sports bars to watch football.
Trivial (Score:2)
Compared to disasters such as the Piper Alpha. Let's discuss stuff that matters.
alternatives (Score:2)
> "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."
Right. In the past, you had to suck it up because there was generally no place to go. Now there is.
And where are impound lot owners? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The quality of the programs sucks.. (Score:2)
That's what I am noticing. While the prices go up, the quality goes down. More and more "reality" junk. More and more insipid and inane programs. And what seems like hundreds of "crap" channels on the cable (shopping, infomercial) that serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the channel count that the cable company provides.
My wife is a sports nut, and right now you can't get that online. That and a handful of news programs is about all we regularly watch, and you can't get that online eith
Re: (Score:3)
Oh right, bitching and moaning as an Anonymous Coward.
Lead by example.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, why take a chance?
Because it would cost a few hundred billion dollars and no investor is going to take that chance when it's clear that AT&T and Comcast can and will undercut you once you've gotten your installation complete (see their behavior in Google's markets).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
60 Megabits of what?
Re: (Score:2)
10 years ago? Someone didn't get the memo. [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)