Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - Why American Loathe Cable Companies 1

HughPickens.com writes: Vikas Bajaj writes in the NYT that the results are in and the American Customer Satisfaction Index shows that customer satisfaction with cable TV, Internet and phone service providers have declined to a seven-year low. Of the 43 industries on which the survey solicits opinions, TV and Internet companies tied for last place in customer satisfaction. “Internet and TV have always been among the lowest scoring,” says David VanAmburg, director of the Index. “But this year they’re at the very bottom.” The study, which is based on more than 14,000 consumer surveys, gives companies a rating from 0 to 100. The ACSI reports huge drops in customer satisfaction for Comcast and Time Warner Cable, following their failed merger. Already one of the lowest-scoring companies in the ACSI, Comcast sheds 10 percent to a customer satisfaction score of 54. Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable earns the distinction as least-satisfying company in the Index after falling 9 percent to 51. Joining Time Warner Cable in the basement is ACSI newcomer Mediacom Communications (51), which serves smaller markets in the Midwest and South. “Customer service in these industries has long been bad,” says VanAmburg of Internet and TV providers. “They don’t have a good business model for handling inquiries with efficiency and respect. It goes back a decade plus.”

Even though those complaints are longstanding, customer frustration has risen along with the ever-rising prices. “You compound all that with the prices customers are paying, and that’s the final straw,” says VanAmburg. “They’re opening bills each month and saying ‘I’m paying how much?'” In an age of over-the-top viewing options like Hulu and Netflix, customer dissatisfaction may increasingly translate to companies’ bottom lines. “There was a time when pay TV could get away with discontented users without being penalized by revenue losses from defecting customers,” says Claes Fornell, chairman and founder of the Index. “But those days are over.”

Comment Re:Them damn commies? Really? (Score 0) 254

MotherJones used to have journalists, but they are now nothing but a pro-progressive propaganda rag, fond of running hit pieces on anyone to the right of Mao Zedong.

You do realize you just replied with a "god damn commies" ad hominem to an article citing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on the topic of... well... diseases and vaccination?

I said nothing about Commies - and it wasn't a link to CDC, it was a link to Mother Jones. They site all kinds of stuff, then provide their own interpretation.

Here is your clues that, while the article uses facts, it's points are all opinion:

  • "major spike" - linked to another Mother Jones article spouting a lot of hyperbole and cherry-picked statistics
  • "2015 might be even worse"
  • A tiny, modified, and out of context quote from an authority [appeal to authority]. Actual quote: "It's only January and we have already had a very large number of measles cases. As many cases as we typically have all year in typical years. This worries me and I want to do everything possible to prevent measles from getting a foothold in the United States and becoming endemic again." Note "could get" is not something Schuchat actually said.
  • Scary graphics, which apparently had issues so glaring one of them had to be revised

For Mother Jones, this article is really not bad, I don't have any real issues with it. But Mother Jones is not a trustworthy publication. Just saying.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 510

Note that there is a difference between the actions of an individual that the rest of the party had no clue about, and the actions of an individual that the rest of the party comes rushing to the defense of.

Hastert is most certainly the former - dude does something criminal/stupid long ago, but the rest of the party has no clue that it happened. Note that no one credible in his party is defending his actions, pre or post.

There are however plenty of examples of politicians in a certain other party that have committed outright crimes, yet are hotly defended by their party at large.

It's a pretty big difference.

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 0) 254

Diphtheria has a very serious "side effect", and I suspect the percentage of patients who develop it is larger than the percentage that react to the vaccine.

So as long as most people are okay, just accept whatever collateral damage is caused. Sure, okay. I'm glad this "Well I'm okay so screw the rest of you" attitude isn't applied to most other government programs.

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254

I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

Would you support also eliminating the immunity from liability that has been granted to pharmaceutical companies for vaccines? Would you include mandates for things like Gardasil even for boys (which Merck & Co have been promoting)? Who do you hold responsible when a mandated vaccine proves to be defective (like happened with RotaShield), or has manufacturing issues that causes problems, which happens with vaccines more than any other drug). If a parent gets a vaccine for their child that causes a problem, and since you can't go after the manufacturer, would you charge the parents for endangerment then, too?

Comment Re:Stucturing (Score 5, Informative) 510

IIRC, the original 1980's-era laws were only interested in transactions $10k or greater. The Patriot Act addiction/enhancements were to use semi-regular transactions of under $10k as 'structuring' (that is, to try and close the workaround of, say, withdrawing or depositing substantial amounts under $10k on a semi-regular or regular basis.)

The overall effect is to make you a felon if you cannot fully account for (and prove!) where you got or spent the money. The mortgage payment? Yeah - easy to account for, so you're not a felon. Taking money out on a regular basis to support a pricey hobby where you don't keep all the receipts? Now you're a felon if the Feds decide they want you to be one. This is why it's a bullshit law - it can be very easily abused by the first federal prosecutor who has a hate-on for you, and by the way, happens to know that you throw around a lot of money that you don't have all the receipts for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Working...