Americans Hate TV and Internet Providers More Than Other Industries 255
An anonymous reader writes "According to a new report by the American Customer Satisfaction Index, subscription TV providers and ISPs were the industries Americans disliked the most over the past year. 'Over-the-top video services, like Netflix and Hulu, threaten subscription TV providers and also put pressure on ISP network infrastructure. Customers question the value proposition of both, as consumers pay for more than they need in terms of subscription TV and get less than they want in terms of Internet speeds and reliability.' Unsurprisingly, Time Warner Cable and Comcast are the companies with the most dissatisfied customers. The ACSI said, '[I]t's a concern whenever two poor-performing service providers combine operations. ACSI data consistently show that mergers in service industries usually result in lower customer satisfaction, at least in the short term. It's hard to see how combining two negatives will be a positive for consumers.'"
Funny, they're not my first choices (Score:4, Informative)
Hateful industries include lawyers, politicians, washing machine repairmen, insurance companies, heating engineers, telemarketers, car salesmen...
Surely they come before ISPs and TV providers.
Re:so? americans always hate some company (Score:2, Informative)
Your main point aside, Comcast's most recent quarterly profit margin was 10.75% [ycharts.com] and Apple's was 22.40% [ycharts.com]. Why would you bother guessing at things when they're so easily researched?
Re:so? americans always hate some company (Score:4, Informative)
that's the point of cable, lots of niche channels where you only watch a few that you like
From a customer standpoint, the point of cable is that I want to watch the History channel, and it isn't available OTA.
Maybe if you're a cable exec the point of cable is to find ways to charge people for services they don't want. That is more the point of the guy who runs up to your car and washes your window while you're stopped at a light.
The only way cable companies can get away with it is that there is no competition. If the local Walmart forced everybody to buy at least 24 different products every time they walked in the door they'd go out of business. Amazon sells like gangbusters by giving people honest reviews, decent prices, a catalog that includes just about everything that is sold anywhere, and a few options for paying for the shipping. Real businesses have to strip out the non-value-adds to stay in business. Utilities that are allowed to run like conventional businesses become scam operations.
Re:Not me (Score:2, Informative)
> What happens if that particular company folds or goes away?
Um, you get off at a different tube stop?
Microsoft NEVER owned Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
MS invested in Comcast years ago and then they sold their stake - years ago. [barrons.com]
Re:Not me (Score:2, Informative)
It literally IS their role to be nice to society. Corporate charters are supposed to be strictly in the public interest and are supposed to be dissolved should that cease to be the case.
Otherwise, it is also not my role to be nice to society and you should hold me blameless when I cheat your granny out of her life savings (all in a perfectly legal and binding contract, of course).
Re:Not me (Score:3, Informative)
Another point, just because someone drives a big SUV to work, doesn't mean it's a status symbol or what have you. Maybe they have 4 kids and don't want to (or can afford to) have a small car just for commuting. Or maybe they need the vehicle for work because they regularly carry large bulky items for sale or install... I've more and more tried to turn off my generalization engine...
They could get a minivan that has better millage then the gas guzzling SUV.
Re:Not me (Score:4, Informative)
Both in legal practice and psychologically - No, they don't. A CEO has to more-or less personally and provably give the order to shoot a busload of orphans before the legal system will impose any sanctions beyond some pittance of a fine against individuals acting under the corporate umbrella. And while Nuremberg may not have accepted "just following orders" as a defense, humans really do think that way - Most people would much rather commit atrocities than lose their job or have their peers think less of them.
But if I band together with a lynch mob and go out and kill people as a group, am I absolved because the mob was "looking after its own interests, which is to" kill people?
Google "Shell Oil Nigeria Murder" for a good perspective on that. They actually outsourced to the local Junta the torture and murder of a local tribe inconveniently living on land Shell wanted to "drill baby drill", and skated away scot-free - The USSC has even gone so far out on a limb to protect its corporate masters that they outright shielded Shell from civil lawsuits by Nigerian refugees in the US.
Make no mistake, I fully agree with you in principle, and would like to see the CEO of RDS (along with many, many others just as guilty of similar crimes) sent to Oklahoma to try one of their early morning experimental drug cocktails. But the reality of our current situation has corporations essentially immune from most legal consequences by definition; an unwillingness to go after the humans actually responsible; and a human wetware flaw that means yes, you and I would probably do the same thing in their shoes.