All Major ISPs Have Declined In Customer Satisfaction, Says Study (dslreports.com) 85
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.
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.
The current administration emboldens them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
The answer is right there in the post:
Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason.
WTF? (Score:1, Troll)
The good news, is that with the current administration's descent into kleptocracy
WTF?
we can literally shoot them in the middle of the street and face no legal consequences as there's absolutely zero authority of law and justice anymore.
WTF?
Remember, Trump himself has personally declared that government by brute force is his preferred means of action, that he endorses terrorism and coercion,
WTF?
that he will bend anybody to his will.
I realize being a liberal comes with a big dose of cognitive dissonance, but the "he's literally Hitler" thing was dropped months ago. Take a moment to consider our situation:
We're currently enjoying peace and prosperity, for the first time in decades.
Is there any point or purpose in making shit up about the administration?
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law [wikipedia.org]
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Deficits - up
National debt - up
gas prices - up
school shootings - up
mass shooting deaths - way up
Re: (Score:3)
Volcano eruptions - WAAAAAY up...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Under Ronald Reagan, 20 years before the War on Terror
See previous answer.
1973
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 Tru
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I believe I will.
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?
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.
Yeah, you sound like the kind of guy th
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 na
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 [nytimes.com]. 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. H
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Let's just go to the bottom of your comment first, so we can see just how nuts you are:
We're currently enjoying peace and prosperity, for the first time in decades.
Is there any point or purpose in making shit up about the administration?
No. So why are you doing it? This is not a moment of peace (In fact, America has been involved in military action continuously since WWII) and it is also not a moment of prosperity (see PR's sibling comment, also, the unemployment rates are a disgusting lie as always.)
I realize being a liberal comes with a big dose of cognitive dissonance, but the "he's literally Hitler" thing was dropped months ago.
It really wasn't [yahoo.com], since he keeps saying things that hitler literally would have said.
Anyway, back to the top of your comment, now...
the current administration's descent into kleptocracy
WTF?
Trump is in debt, which
Re: (Score:2)
But, my analysis is that it's more likely you are aware, which makes it all the more rich that you mention "cognit
Local administrations (Score:1)
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?
A more nuanced observation is to note that the problem stems directly from local administrations granting a monopoly to a single provider, eliminating any chance of competition.
But hey - if trashing the administration is your thing, then go for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 maintainin
Re: (Score:1)
Please, cite anything done against "net neutrality" by an ISP (and then by Verizon in particular) since April 23, 2018. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
No, you've gathered wrong. My point is, their having done nothing with the new freedom from "net neutrality" rules proves, beyond any doubt, that "net neutrality" changes have nothing to do with the consumers' (dis)satisfaction.
In other words, "net neutrality" — as well as "the current administration" and the entire GOP, which you dragged into the conversation — are irrelevant to TFA and are otherwise off-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Quality of customer support, as I pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Say it with me: "absolutely nothing". There, s
Re: (Score:2)
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 neutrali
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 be
The cable monopolies are a *result* of regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
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: The cable monopolies are a *result* of regulat (Score:1)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to worry (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
And in 20 years, when every affluent community has had its value driven down becaus
Re: (Score:2)
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 u
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick from (Score:1)
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
Re: In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick (Score:1)
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
Re: In Keene, NH I have a half dozen ISPs to pick (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
$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 lat
1 world, space link, etc are going to have fun (Score:2)
Lack of perceived value (Score:2)
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 valu
Well..... (Score:1)