Smaller ISPs Have Happier Customers, UK Based Study Says (betanews.com) 54
Mark Wilson, writing for BetaNews: If you have eschewed the big names and opted for a smaller ISP, you probably have a happier broadband experience. These are the findings of a report which says the big four ISPs in the UK -- BT, Sky, Virgin Media and TalkTalk -- are rated lower than their smaller rivals. In fact, the highest rated provider, SSE, has only been in the broadband game since 2014, with Yorkshire-based Plusnet coming in second place, says Cable.co.uk. Of the big names, TalkTalk provides broadband to 13 percent of UK internet users, yet it scored just 6.66 out of 10 and placed in ninth position. The four biggest companies accounts for 87 percent of the market, but the best performer -- Sky -- only managed to hit fifth place.
Nature of smaller businesses... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dominant players in the market tend to recognize ability to rest on their laurels, while smaller players tend to be more aggressively trying to win business. If they fail to do that, they'd go out of business.
Basically a company with prospects for growth will, on average, do better by their customers than a company without any prospect to grow.
Re: (Score:3)
When the end worker is so many middle-managers away from the people who think that they run the company, feedback from the bottom does not reach the top, and directives from the top do not reach the bottom. Scott Adams of Dilbert fame wrote about a quality initiative that was started at Pacific Bell when he worked there, the only noticeable difference that reached down to him as an engineer was that the word Quality appeared preprinted on their internal notepad s
Re: (Score:2)
Better customer satisfaction doesn't necessarily mean more reliable or faster service. Often it just means friendlier interaction. If you look at doctor reviews on Yelp, the biggest difference between those rated highly and lowly, is the politeness of the front desk staff. People complain about rude receptionists far more than they worry about their mom dying from a misdiagnosis.
Re: Nature of smaller businesses... (Score:2)
Well, my mom's already dead, so a misdiagnosis wouldn't worry me much anyway.
As for me, it's not the politeness of the receptionist (they haven't got one), but the responsiveness of their service. Their CEO was going to show up at my house on Saturday to try to resolve a modem configuration problem on a new install that we couldn't figure out over the phone. Luckily I stumbled over the incorrect setting and saved him a trip. But that's the level of service they provide.
Their people are polite and helpful an
Re: (Score:2)
My time is fairly limited. I cannot afford to put up with problems in scheduling appointments or problems and delays with front office staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or shrink or die. Oligopolies almost always suck. They may be okay when they first become oligopolies because they still have the fire of competition in their culture. But gradually they grow too comfortable, or spend most resources on preventing new-comers rather than on being good.
It's the main reason Microsoft failed with their mobile and tablet devices despite having e
Not surprising (Score:1)
Smaller businesses usually don't have shareholders and recognize the importance of customer loyalty. Larger businesses tend to be more concerned with extracting as much money from people as possible while cutting corners. It's fine to want to make a profit, provided you're not cutting corners and cheating your customers. Unfortunately, telecommunications has become just as Jewish as many other industries in this regard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What's sad is that we're even having to make these comparisons, that these companies are so bad that we're talking lesser-of-evils.
Re: (Score:2)
They were still small when I started service with them which was really good. I've never had any trouble with them but they have a local office with the same people who have been working there for years and the line guy lives just up the street from me. The only difference I've seen is that they are more expensive and call asking me to upgrade my service at least once ever couple months. I don't have a TV subscription just internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had other services do the same but we have 6 ISPs in my area not including mobile and only two of them have an office you can walk into. I think the two fiber providers split the area without any overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still refer to it as a NOC or as the COX NOC. And the people that work there as COX NOCers.
No brainer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Walmart, I love you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zen Internet for the win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Zen Internet's £32.99 pcm for unlimited basic broadband (17MB down/1 up) is not cheap.
Sky sell the same package for £15 pcm.
Just wait for a SINGLE-PAYER ISP (Score:4, Funny)
That's simply because they haven't tried a Single-Payer Provider — that's where the ultimate happiness resides.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the isps that have cheaper rates because they don't do zero rating?
If you're talking about making it a public utility (Score:2)
Put another way, I've yet to meet a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those nasty right wing AmeriKKKan$ underfunding Britain's biggest ISP?..
With sufficient funding, government can make anything "fantastic". The point is, competing private companies inevitably offer even better service for the same money.
Maybe, yo
Re: (Score:3)
That article is complete bollocks in the way you're using it. Canadians are crossing the border for elective surgery that isn't covered by their universal health care... meaning people getting nose and boob jobs. Its the same as saying that Australians are fleeing to Thailand for medical care when in reality they're only going there to get their tits done at half the cost... Or Americans fle
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting contrast you are trying to make. So, being service-, rather than profit-oriented is the key? Does that mean, non-profits are always better — should restaurants and health-clubs become non-profit too, even if that means nationalizing them?
If not, why? What's so uniquely special about the service of health-care, that it — and it alone — is better run by the government?
Re: (Score:2)
really?
you haven't figured this part out yet?
You're trying to applies restaurant economics to healthcare and that simply doesn't work.
the two are not comparable.
When you go to a restaurant, if they screw up your order you'll probably still live.
When you go to a restaurant, and they recommend the fish it's not because the alternative is death.
In healthcare peoples lives are on the line.
And if they present you a choice between 200k$ surgery or certain death, it doesn't matter what your financial situation is,
Re: (Score:2)
That may be a reason to regulate doctors stricter. But it is not a reason to nationalize them...
Of course, there is plenty of "shopping around" — or, rather, there can be. People even travel abroad for such procedures [quora.com] — they aren't all about "boob jobs" as someone claimed. Some
Re: (Score:2)
Reality calling:
http://theincidentaleconomist.... [theinciden...nomist.com]
-rich people have always ignored borders
-they're not talking about life threatening medicine, but elective medicine. non-lifethreatening.
know how you reduce wait times?
by spending more money.
its the old engineer axiom:
fast, cheap, or effective. pick two.
Re: (Score:2)
also many of the people who sought care outside Canada did so because they were -already- outside the country.
the number that -left- the country to seek care is still vanishingly small, and predominantly rich.
You mean telco monopolies? (Score:2)
Can confirm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, and here I was thinking of Grande as a smaller guy. I'm in the situation where Google is unveiling fiber and heavily advertising, and I have to choose if I want to stay with Grande or go with the faster Google Fiber. I'm not sure if I want all my base are belong to Google.
What makes small companies better (Score:3)
Certainly true for me (Score:3)
My smaller ISP (Zen Internet, zen.co.uk) certainly provide good service.
When you can create a trouble ticket with your ISP advising them that they have a likely link problem causing packet loss and resulting traffic congestion in their peering with another ISP, including route traces from several directions, and they respond within 2 hours thanking you for the report and having fixed the problem - then you know they're the ones to be with.
They're also more than averagely resistant to media industry intimidation pass-through (they demand a court order, instead of just giving up info at a whim) and government surveillance (they don't sign up to "voluntary" Government initiatives for more inept censorship).
Re: (Score:2)
If your native language is Pundujabit (Score:2)
Now it might make sense that if the subject is plural (hence, usually ends with an 's') the verb should too. It might make sense if you are normally speaking the jolly old Pundujabit, old chap.
But it's doesn't work like that.
Find a small ISP in the USA (Score:1)
In the US, you can find a small ISP servicing your address at http://isp.ninja/ [isp.ninja]
Re: (Score:2)
It said 'Sysyem Error'. Not that helpful, but somehow it sums it all up nicely.
If you still can find "small ISPs" (Score:2)
All about scale (Score:2)
The advantage of big companies is that they gain economies of scale. But customer service doesn't scale very well. Every time customer service becomes a focus, the accounting department shuts down the budget. Call center personnel are low paid and poorly trained because their managers are low paid and poorly trained, having come up through the ranks of the underfunded call centers. This happens across the board. The engineers know that they could improve reliability (and customer satisfaction) by upgrading