ISPs Say Their 'Excellent Customer Service' Is Why Users Don't Switch Providers (arstechnica.com) 28
Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin reports: Lobby groups for Internet service providers claim that ISPs' customer service is so good already that the government shouldn't consider any new regulations to mandate improvements. They also claim ISPs face so much competition that market forces require providers to treat their customers well or lose them to competitors. Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association told the Federal Communications Commission in a filing (PDF) that "providing high-quality products and services and a positive customer experience is a competitive necessity in today's robust communications marketplace. To attract and retain customers, NCTA's cable operator members continuously strive to ensure that the customer support they provide is effective and user-friendly. Given these strong marketplace imperatives, new regulations that would micromanage providers' customer service operations are unnecessary."
Lobby groups filed comments in response to an FCC review of customer service that was announced last month, before the presidential election. While the FCC's current Democratic leadership is interested in regulating customer service practices, the Republicans who will soon take over opposed the inquiry. USTelecom, which represents telcos such as AT&T and Verizon, said that "the competitive broadband marketplace leaves providers of broadband and other communications services no choice but to provide their customers with not only high-quality broadband, but also high-quality customer service."
"If a provider fails to efficiently resolve an issue, they risk losing not only that customer -- and not just for the one service, but potentially for all of the bundled services offered to that customer -- but also any prospective customers that come across a negative review online. Because of this, broadband providers know that their success is dependent upon providing and maintaining excellent customer service," USTelecom wrote. While the FCC Notice of Inquiry said that providers should "offer live customer service representative support by phone within a reasonable timeframe," USTelecom's filing touted the customer service abilities of AI chatbots. "AI chat agents will only get better at addressing customers' needs more quickly over time -- and if providers fail to provide the customer service and engagement options that their customers expect and fail to resolve their customers' concerns, they may soon find that the consumer is no longer a customer, having switched to another competitive offering," the lobby group said.
Lobby groups filed comments in response to an FCC review of customer service that was announced last month, before the presidential election. While the FCC's current Democratic leadership is interested in regulating customer service practices, the Republicans who will soon take over opposed the inquiry. USTelecom, which represents telcos such as AT&T and Verizon, said that "the competitive broadband marketplace leaves providers of broadband and other communications services no choice but to provide their customers with not only high-quality broadband, but also high-quality customer service."
"If a provider fails to efficiently resolve an issue, they risk losing not only that customer -- and not just for the one service, but potentially for all of the bundled services offered to that customer -- but also any prospective customers that come across a negative review online. Because of this, broadband providers know that their success is dependent upon providing and maintaining excellent customer service," USTelecom wrote. While the FCC Notice of Inquiry said that providers should "offer live customer service representative support by phone within a reasonable timeframe," USTelecom's filing touted the customer service abilities of AI chatbots. "AI chat agents will only get better at addressing customers' needs more quickly over time -- and if providers fail to provide the customer service and engagement options that their customers expect and fail to resolve their customers' concerns, they may soon find that the consumer is no longer a customer, having switched to another competitive offering," the lobby group said.
Summary: ISPs lie, Trump will help them do it (Score:2, Insightful)
I must be dreaming (Score:5, Funny)
Have you ever had one of those dreams where things happen that are so Kafkaesque weird that you think you must be in another world?
Kudos to the lobbyist. It's a masterwork of gaslighting.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the reminder to return Optimum's router (Score:2)
Because the only thing worse than their Internet service is their customer support.
Nobody switches because (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is so bad where I am that being low priority on a cellular network is better (I switched to T-Mobile when it became available, and aside from no ip6 passthrough and carrier level NAT it's significantly better).
I really wish they'd do IP6 passthrough so I could have a unique IP address (there are occasional issues that I assume are related to the NAT), but I get actual upstream bandwidth for dramatically less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is so bad where I am that being low priority on a cellular network is better (I switched to T-Mobile when it became available, and aside from no ip6 passthrough and carrier level NAT it's significantly better).
I really wish they'd do IP6 passthrough so I could have a unique IP address (there are occasional issues that I assume are related to the NAT), but I get actual upstream bandwidth for dramatically less money.
I dumped ATT 1Gig fiber for TMob first chance I got. $25/month, streaming works fine, upload speeds slower but saving $75+/month makes waiting an extra 30 seconds for an upload to finish is a fair tradeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kinda surprised anyone on /. would actually be satisfied with T-Mobile's home broadband. I tried it myself awhile back and just couldn't tolerate the latency (makes VOIP nearly unusable), various multiplayer games not working because of the CGNAT, and the T-Mobile's modem/router combo basically being a massive pile of festering dog shit in regards to configurability.
Verizon's home wireless broadband offering is much better in every aspect except for speeds in my area. It gives you a real IPv4 address a
Partly true (Score:2)
In some markets this argument holds merit. While others they are the only game in town with agreements with the municipalities for exclusive access to telephone poles. Maybe the compromise is to waive regulations in circumstances where there are at least 5 competing carriers able to provide at least 40% of the bandwidth of the fastest carrier in that municipality.
no choice (Score:2)
There is a single fiber provider in my area, and frankly they suck. The only alternative is cable, which sucks even more. There is no real choice and if I had one I'd probably take it at least once.
With the stupid 'introductory pricing' if there were two viable providers I would flip/flop every other year and pay less.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're serious? (Score:2)
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa Oh, you're serious?
Re: (Score:2)
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa Oh, you're serious?
Let me laugh even harder. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
And I'm Clark Kent!
Flat out lie (Score:3)
Most US ISP hold pretty strong regional monopolies or participate in likewise strong duopolies.
WTF are they talking about? (Score:2)
With large portions of the country essentially locked to one, and only one, ISP, how is competition so fierce they can't possibly need regulation? I know in my neighborhood there's only one choice unless you want the unreliability of the local wireless provider. I think defacto, and sometimes local government enforced monopoly power pretty much negates this argument.
The last two stories here are real "corporations have a problem with reality" takes. Is there going to be a point were reality is forced back t
Competition (Score:2)
Good customer service, and the pricing, and quality, all mostly depend on if there is or is not competition in that space. So many areas have government-approved/allowed/granted/mandated/whatever monopolies on cabled ISP and those customers are trapped. Those customers can only hope for government regulation and interference, and even then it doesn't work out that great.
I have been locked into a monopoly at home for decades. My only realistic choice has been the cable company (DSL is either long gone or
It's True, At Least In My Case (Score:2)
At least in my case, it's definitely true.
I'm on Comcast right now, and I could very easily switch to CenturyLink fiber. But for as nice as the higher upload speeds would be, CenturyLink's network engineering and customer support is notoriously bad around these parts. They have far more downtime and service outages (DNS, etc) than Comcast does.
Not that Comcast is a saint, especially in terms of pricing. But their network engineering and infrastructure management is top notch; the only time I'm out of servic
One of the things I find funny (Score:2)
So your ISP lies to you about their anti-competitive behavior and that's a no-go.
Your favorite politician lies to you about tariffs and suddenly that's cool.
In both cases you know they're lying just sometimes one person gets a pass and the other doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
So your ISP lies to you about their anti-competitive behavior and that's a no-go.
Why don't you go and ask ChatGPT what the market capitalization is of the cable industry? Hell, I was just at a major theme park recently that happens to be owned by a cable company (bonus points if you can guess their name).
Where rubber meets the road, people are just as willing to accept cable company lies as they are the ones that come out of politicians' mouths. That's what happens when you don't have a lot of options.
Only where there's real competition (Score:2)
I have 19 ISPs to choose from for my municipal fiber here.
When I set it up in 2019, I had very specific requirements that only one of them could meet. That's no longer relevant, and I've had good experiences in the past with another one of the options, but I stay out of inertia.
Price and customer service seem pretty comparable across the board.
But obviously most people don't have a real choice of ISPs.
Yet. (Score:2)
Customer service? You just haven't been irritating enough to drive me away yet.
Um... That's not the reason people don't change (Score:2)
I have had the same cable Internet provider at my home for 12 years now. It isn't because they have the best customer service (but to be fair, they are pretty decent all things considered.) It's because there is exactly one provider that can provide something resembling "broadband" in my neighborhood. The telco offers "12mbps down" DSL in my neighborhood, but in reality you're lucky if you get 4mbps down. That's what my mom had at this house before she passed and I moved in. The only other options I hav
Hilariously, it's sort of true (Score:2)
A few months ago when my street had a transformer blow, Spectrum actually arrived hours ahead of FPL. I felt a little bad telling their techs that they were sent on a wild goose chase, because the service disruption the neighbors were reporting was a result of Spectrum's equipment being offline due to the power outage. Anytime I've had any issues which required a technician they've been similarly prompt.
My gripes with Spectrum are primarily in the areas of pricing and poor speeds (which I'm assuming is du
Truly laugh out loud funny (Score:2)
So, clearly, loyalty dominates in areas where there is no