Thanks To No Competition, Broadband Satisfaction Scores Plummet
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
For years now we've documented the shitshow that is broadband industry customer satisfaction. That shitshow is generally thanks to a continued lack of real competition in the space, which lets these companies not only mindlessly raise rates like it's going out of style, but it gives companies like Comcast the leeway to experiment with terrible, anti-competitive practices like arbitrary and punitive usage caps and overage fees. And that's of course before you get to the clown car that passes for customer service at many of these companies, which routinely makes headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Year after year we witness a rotating crop of bizarre stories highlighting how terribly these entrenched monopolies treat their subscribers. And each year industry executives insist that they've learned the error of their ways and have dedicated themselves and their budgets to fixing the "consumer experience."
Except because these companies all but own state and federal lawmakers-- and see virtually no competition in their markets (especially at higher speeds)--things never actually get better. Case in point: the American Customer Satisfaction Index has released their latest analysis of customer satisfaction with the broadband industry. And what they found isn't pretty. In short, every single major ISP but one saw a decline in customer satisfaction over the last year:
Note that these scores are worse than every other industry the ACSI tracks, including the airline, insurance, and banking sectors. And these scores are even well below consumer satisfaction with many government agencies, including the IRS.
Comcast in fact is the only company to see no change whatsoever (though its TV services saw a 1 point decline), which is still notable given its 2014 promise that the hiring of a customer experience VP and other well-hyped improvements were going to "revolutionize" the way Comcast consumers were treated. Other companies like Charter (Spectrum) are in absolute free fall, dropping 8% year over year thanks to the poor service, rate hikes and empty promises in the wake of the company's bungled $89 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.
And while things like gigabit broadband get a lot of media hype, we've noted that the lack of competition driving this problem is only getting worse. Numerous telcos have all but given up on residential broadband to shift their focus toward video advertising and enterprise services. And as they refuse to upgrade millions of DSL subscribers they don't actually want, cable companies like Comcast and Charter are securing a greater monopoly over broadband than ever before.
Some like to claim new wireless technologies (like 5G) will emerge to magically provide competition to these providers. But while 5G wireless will provide faster, lower-latency and more resillient networks, it won't fix the business data service monopoly that drives high prices and many of the competition issues in the wireless sector. Nor will it address the industry's plan to keep putting ma bell back together via an endless array of competition-reducing megamergers. And however promising 5G is, it's not a substitute for uncapped, fixed broadband -- especially in more rural areas and less affluent cities.
While cable secures a growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband, monopoly ISPs (with the Trump administration's help) are gutting all FTC, FCC and state oversight over their regional monopolistic fiefdoms. All while regulators like Ajit Pai whisper sweet nothings about how eliminating popular consumer protections like net neutrality will magically improve sector investment and competition. Surely this all works out well for the consumer, right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acsi, broadband, competition, customer satisfaction, fcc
Companies: charter, comcast, time warner, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhh -- there's the core problem. You have a corrupt American political system where most lawmakers can be bought by big-money special interests.
You can't buy what is not for sale. Why are our lawmakers for sale.
Endless bitc_ing about big corporations accomplishes nothing -- fix the suffocating corruption in U.S. politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google Fiber
REALLY "JoeCool"? Google spent BILLIONS in court?
'Cause a minion has stated "Google, which is spending billions on wireless service and fiber to the home":'
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20151001/06351732404/isp-announces -blocking-all-facebook-google-ads-until-companies-pay-troll-toll.shtml
No. You are FLATLY WRONG, kid. Typical Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
Dude was just making a hyperbolic statement and not being adamant at all about the actual dollar amount. chill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
https://www.benzinga.com/trading-ideas/long-ideas/18/04/11567157/19-companies-google-could- buy-with-its-102-billion-in-cash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
Yeah, I find it kinda funny that they seem to have a problem with the company, and when backed into a corner they came out with a suggestion that would make the company vastly more powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
Buying out Charter, Comcast, ATT, and Verizon alone would be such a huge violation of antitrust laws, no one in their right mind would even go near to approving that. Granted we've got some messed up situations but that is an entirley different level of messed up that would never happen in today's business and political climate.
And buying judges, you must think every judge is crooked then? Because they would pretty much have to buy every judge in the country to get away with it.
Please take your logical dissonance elsewhere. Better yet, ditch it and come back to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
Contrary to your belief, Google doesn't have unlimited resources to do whatever it wants and it does still have to do a cost benefit analysis. If they have to spend billions (by your assertion) in every city just to have the right to build out their fiber network, I'm sorry but that's not a sustainable business model, even for Google. Sure they could fight in a few cities (and did) but if they have to do that in every city across America, that's not just going to cost them billions but trillions or more! Google isn't that rich, no company is.
The only thing Google is at fault for is underestimating how crooked and sleazy incumbent ISPs really are, how much they hate competition and how far they are willing to go to block other competitiors.
Again, drop your logical dissonance, bad facts, and come back to reality. The unabashed love for letting incumbent ISPs screw over their customers and any competition is not a good look for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
Actually, Joe didn't say anything about billions or any other amount. He just said they spent more in court than building infrastructure. You're the one who brought up billions and jumped down his throat for being "wrong".
And honestly, so what? Your post doesn't prove him wrong and if Google is as rich as you say then they can spend billions in court and billions in infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google Fiber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RNC and DNC act like a cartel, only allowing committee-approved candidates in to the presidential election to stifle competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You ran nearly this SAME trivia last week!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You ran nearly this SAME trivia last week!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You ran nearly this SAME trivia last week!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it comes to taking my money from me, the IRS is far more transparent about how much they're taking and easier to understand the reasons why compared to Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...cable is going out of style, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COX and CenturyLink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but no. Unless your name was Sheldon Cooper (and even then I'd have doubts) I fail to see how any rational human being could view that as a plausible threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a natural monopoly exists, there's room for regulation. But regulation (which is something separate from antitrust) also tends to decrease the number of viable competitors and encourage monopolies. Regulation is a good alternative when competition can't exist, such as when there's a natural monopoly and antitrust won't work, but don't confuse it for antitrust.
It's quite difficult to simultaneously achieve universal service and equity along with competition and reasonable, close to marginal cost rates in educated and wealthier areas, as those goals conflict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heh
Ever heard of the saying "don't cut off your nose to spite your face"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]