You won't believe this but... everyone hates their cable company: Bombshell study lands

Something to do with ripping you off and treating you like an a-hole while doing so

You almost have to admire the US cable industry's absolute disregard for its own paying subscribers.

For the past 15 years, it has received the lowest marks in customer satisfaction across the entire American economy, and it's not planning to change that rock-bottom appreciation any time soon.

Consumer Reports this week published the results of a large-scale survey into customers' feeling toward their provider, and guess what? Yep, we all still hate being ripped off, and being treated like a-holes at the same time.

"Most of the larger cable companies – Optimum (Cablevision), Comcast, and Spectrum (Charter, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks) – earned low scores in multiple categories, settling into the bottom half of the 25 providers in CR's new telecom service ratings," the watchdog organization notes.

And the reason for everyone's dislike is the same as every other year: Big Cable charges too much, for too little, it provides terrible customer service, and adds random hidden fees that cause your bill to slowly increase until you are forced to make yet another call and get yet another "deal."

"Nearly three-quarters of the survey respondents who have a bundled plan – TV, internet, and phone – said they got a special promotional price when they signed up. And 45 percent were still enjoying that rate when they answered our survey," according to a summary of the findings. "So you might expect that respondents with bundled services feel like they're getting a good deal."

But, amazingly, they don't: "Every company but one received the lowest score possible for value."

Pay more for less

In the upside-down world of the US cable market, if you get your service from one of the multi-billion-dollar corporations that dominate it, you pay more, not less. "Respondents paid a median price of $186 a month for their triple-play bundles. And the median price for the bundles offered by the three bigger cable companies – Comcast, Cox, and Optimum – was closer to $200 a month."

As had been explained repeatedly for years, this is because Big Cable operates in an effective oligopoly, with the largest companies actively ensuring they do not compete with one another, with their vast resources focused on protecting their markets and keeping out competition.

One way they do this, as everyone in the US will no doubt know, is to offer "special deals" at low prices, and then gradually increase the price of that offering over time by removing "discounts" or adding random additional fees.

"When we asked readers to submit examples of hidden fees and confusing bills through our Share Your Story platform, hundreds of Consumer Reports members pointed to charges on their cable bills," the org noted. "Comcast's Xfinity service was among the most frequently cited offenders."

Among those fees is a "broadcast TV fee" that has existed for decades but cable companies continue to charge on top of their offerings, rather than including it in the price they quote customers. That costs between $4 and $11 a month. And then there's the "sports surcharge" ($7-$12) that is levied despite the cable companies often owning the regional sports networks that they are "paying" for.

Then we get into the real rip-offs: "HD technology" for $10 a month even though all programming went high-definition years ago. There is the extraordinary set-top box fee where you "rent" your clunky, outdated cable box for between $7 and $13 – a source of pure profit amounting to an incredible $20bn a year for cable companies.

Regulatory failure

The FCC tried to end the set-top box rip-off in 2016 under its previous chairman and give consumers the right to buy their own boxes – which would work out at a fraction of the cost – but was faced with a relentless barrage of pressure from the cable industry. It was one of the first things that the new cable-industry-friendly FCC boss Ajit Pai killed off when he took over.

And then there is "DVR Service" fee, which runs at an incredible $13 to $25 a month, even though storage costs nothing these days, and other products on the market will let your record far more shows for far, far less.

You'd think with all this extra money that cable companies would invest in keeping their ripped-off subscribers happy, but no, their customer service sucks as well.

All the big cable companies receive a "poor" rating when it comes to customer support. As an example, Consumer Report quotes one punter complaining about Cox: "I call them to discuss how to lower my bill every time I see an increase, and sometimes they help, sometimes they are just rude. I call Cox so much that they are listed as one of my favorite phone numbers."

But before you despair, there is hope, and it comes in the form of EVERYONE THAT ISN'T BIG CABLE.

"Top-rated EPB, a municipal broadband service run as a public utility in Chattanooga, Tenn., was one of the few bright spots for internet service," the watchdog reported. "It was the only company to receive a top mark for value. It also got top marks for speed and reliability."

So a municipal internet service gets top marks. Who else does well? Google. "Google Fiber was a close second in the ratings, the only other company to get a favorable mark for value."

What to do

In fact, if you want to be less infuriated with your cable company, the answer appears to be to go with the small guys. "Smaller cable companies – Armstrong, RCN, Hawaiian Telecom, and Grande Communications – emerged from the pack with slightly higher ratings for value, but that's faint praise. In the end, only Armstrong received an especially favorable overall satisfaction score."

None of this should comes as a surprise: reports and articles and white papers have identified and covered the exact same issue again and again for years, but while it continues to bring in vast profits, and the federal regulator refuses to introduce real competition into the market, nothing is going to change.

In fact, as we covered earlier this week, Big Cable is pushing the FCC to scrap one federal rule that gives small companies – the same ones offering faster internet at lower prices with better customer service – a fighting chance in the market.

And it is going to great lengths to limit municipal broadband services, including running astroturfing campaigns against them, carrying out legal warfare and engaging in massive local lobbying.


What can you do about it? Three things:

  • If you are policy-inclined, keep track of Big Cable efforts to bend the rules in their favor in Washington and bug your elected representative and the FCC whenever a bad decision is pushed, such as the effort to kill off Section 251 obligations.
  • If you are able to get a smaller ISP at your home – Sonic, or Google, or Mammoth, or anyone outside the big companies – then get their service. Even if their price at first seems higher because of the "deal" you are offered by Comcast et al, they will work out cheaper in the medium and definitely the long term. Anything that cracks the Big Cable model will help put pressure on it.
  • Compare your cable bill every month to the previous month and if it has gone up, at all, call and complain. Best case you will get a reduction and limit the value of the slowly-increasing-fees charging model; worst case, you will add pressure on the companies' customer service.

In short, cable in America sucks. But then you knew that already. ®

The worst five ISPs, according to Consumer Reports:

  1. CenturyLink
  2. Frontier
  3. Viasat
  4. Windstream
  5. HughesNet

The best five ISPs according to Consumer Reports:

  1. EPB
  2. Google Fiber
  3. Armstrong
  4. RCN
  5. Wave

The worst five cable companies offering TV/phone/internet bundles, according to Consumer Reports:

  1. CenturyLink
  2. Optimum
  3. Windstream
  4. Mediacom
  5. Frontier

The best five cable companies offering TV/phone/internet bundles, according to Consumer Reports:

  1. Armstrong
  2. Wave
  3. RCN
  4. Cincinnati Bell
  5. Verizon

Similar topics

Broader topics

Narrower topics

Other stories you might like

  • FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics
    As Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, safeguards on location info now more vital than ever

    Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers.

    Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that declared women's rights to have an abortion are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If the nation's top judges indeed vote to strike down that 1973 decision, individual states, at least, can set their own laws governing women's reproductive rights. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" in place prohibiting abortions – mostly with exceptions in certain conditions, such as if the pregnancy or childbirth endangers the mother's life – that will go into effect if Roe v Wade is torn up. People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.

    Continue reading
  • Zuckerberg sued for alleged role in Cambridge Analytica data-slurp scandal
    I can prove CEO was 'personally involved in Facebook’s failure to protect privacy', DC AG insists

    Cambridge Analytica is back to haunt Mark Zuckerberg: Washington DC's Attorney General filed a lawsuit today directly accusing the Meta CEO of personal involvement in the abuses that led to the data-slurping scandal. 

    DC AG Karl Racine filed [PDF] the civil suit on Monday morning, saying his office's investigations found ample evidence Zuck could be held responsible for that 2018 cluster-fsck. For those who've put it out of mind, UK-based Cambridge Analytica harvested tens of millions of people's info via a third-party Facebook app, revealing a – at best – somewhat slipshod handling of netizens' privacy by the US tech giant.

    That year, Racine sued Facebook, claiming the social network was well aware of the analytics firm's antics yet failed to do anything meaningful until the data harvesting was covered by mainstream media. Facebook repeatedly stymied document production attempts, Racine claimed, and the paperwork it eventually handed over painted a trail he said led directly to Zuck. 

    Continue reading
  • Florida's content-moderation law kept on ice, likely unconstitutional, court says
    So cool you're into free speech because that includes taking down misinformation

    While the US Supreme Court considers an emergency petition to reinstate a preliminary injunction against Texas' social media law HB 20, the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday partially upheld a similar injunction against Florida's social media law, SB 7072.

    Both Florida and Texas last year passed laws that impose content moderation restrictions, editorial disclosure obligations, and user-data access requirements on large online social networks. The Republican governors of both states justified the laws by claiming that social media sites have been trying to censor conservative voices, an allegation that has not been supported by evidence.

    Multiple studies addressing this issue say right-wing folk aren't being censored. They have found that social media sites try to take down or block misinformation, which researchers say is more common from right-leaning sources.

    Continue reading
  • US-APAC trade deal leaves out Taiwan, military defense not ruled out
    All fun and games until the chip factories are in the crosshairs

    US President Joe Biden has heralded an Indo-Pacific trade deal signed by several nations that do not include Taiwan. At the same time, Biden warned China that America would help defend Taiwan from attack; it is home to a critical slice of the global chip industry, after all. 

    The agreement, known as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), is still in its infancy, with today's announcement enabling the United States and the other 12 participating countries to begin negotiating "rules of the road that ensure [US businesses] can compete in the Indo-Pacific," the White House said. 

    Along with America, other IPEF signatories are Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Combined, the White House said, the 13 countries participating in the IPEF make up 40 percent of the global economy. 

    Continue reading
  • 381,000-plus Kubernetes API servers 'exposed to internet'
    Firewall isn't a made-up word from the Hackers movie, people

    A large number of servers running the Kubernetes API have been left exposed to the internet, which is not great: they're potentially vulnerable to abuse.

    Nonprofit security organization The Shadowserver Foundation recently scanned 454,729 systems hosting the popular open-source platform for managing and orchestrating containers, finding that more than 381,645 – or about 84 percent – are accessible via the internet to varying degrees thus providing a cracked door into a corporate network.

    "While this does not mean that these instances are fully open or vulnerable to an attack, it is likely that this level of access was not intended and these instances are an unnecessarily exposed attack surface," Shadowserver's team stressed in a write-up. "They also allow for information leakage on version and build."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022