Comments on: Whatever happened to making customers happy?

Don Reisinger thinks cable companies don't want to make customers happy anymore. Is he right?

[KevLeviathan]

THANK YOU DON! This is what I've been wondering for a long time now.

Somewhere along the line, the illusion of power balance switched from consumers to corporations. Last time I checked, WE are the ones putting money into these big companies' pockets so why is it they think they can dictate what we want and how we'll get it?

And this isn't only ISPs, its many MANY companies out there. The most popular to hate on are the major record labels, and the general music industry as a whole.

[MarkButler1000]

The problem is that companies have learned its cheaper in the long run (i.e. more profitable) to pay the politicians for laws that make the company more profitable and force customers to use you whether it satisfies them or not.

[cporpheus]

The answer is simple: these companies (including mobile carriers), have a good grip on customers after they sign up, limiting competition. In addition to this, ISPs have guaranteed monopolies in many municipalities and rural areas. Does this reality encourage customer satisfaction? Hell, no.

[mkesterco]

Why can't it be like the Honda odometer issue? We know it's incorrect, we've proved it, and they have to fix it, deliver it as stated, and compensate us for the percentage lost... Just a thought.

[aztec92154]

Guess what the hands free device manufacturers did? They helped make it ILLEGAL to make a phone call in your car without one of their hands free devices. I HATE hands free devices! They say: "BUY OUR PRODUCT OR GO TO JAIL OR PAY A FINE!" This is the most aggressive, abusive, and anti-consumer moves I've seen in my lifetime! Instead of touting the benefits of their device (which has been shown in many studies to not help drivers be any safer), they use the LAW to advertise and help them sell their product.
SOURCE:
http://www.daylife.com/photo/06lv0vj42OdSb

[aztec92154]

I highly recommend reading "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless" by New York attorney Ray Beckerman, an outspoken critic of the RIAA.
Source:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/riaa-critic-bec.html

[BrettGlass]

Actually, Comcast's in this case was INTENDED to make customers happy. The only customers who were unhappy about it were bandwidth hogs -- who didn't care if they degraded other customers' service.

By doing this, Comcast was also trying to AVOID metering their Internet service by the bit. But the FCC's ruling forces them into it. If they can't implicitly keep users down to a sane usage level by prohibiting bandwidth hogging activities, they'll have to do it with metering and overage charges. There's just no other way.

The assertion above that there's no broadband competition is also untrue. There are more than 4,000 independent ISPs in the United States -- that's an average of 80 per state! Unfortunately, some journalists are apparently ignorant of this and fail to do their homework before posting false claims that there's a duopoly. This does the public a double disservice: it spreads false information and steers customers away from looking for alternatives -- PROMOTING a duopoly.

For the truth about the "network neutrality" issue, see my testimony before the FCC at

http://www.brettglass.com/remarks.html

[BrettGlass]

Actually, Comcast's behavior in this case was INTENDED to make customers happy. The only customers who were unhappy about it were bandwidth hogs -- who didn't care if they degraded other customers' service.

By doing this, Comcast was also trying to AVOID metering their Internet service by the bit. But the FCC's ruling forces them into it. If they can't implicitly keep users down to a sane usage level by prohibiting bandwidth hogging activities, they'll have to do it with metering and overage charges. There's just no other way.

The assertion above that there's no broadband competition is also untrue. There are more than 4,000 independent ISPs in the United States -- that's an average of 80 per state! Unfortunately, some journalists are apparently ignorant of this and fail to do their homework before posting false claims that there's a duopoly. This does the public a double disservice: it spreads false information and steers customers away from looking for alternatives -- PROMOTING a duopoly.

For the truth about the "network neutrality" issue, see my testimony before the FCC at

http://www.brettglass.com/remarks.html