Why do people hate cable companies??

Believe it or not, there are 5 companies with worse customer service than Comcast

http://bgr.com/2014/07/18/worst-customer-service-ranking-in-usa/

linky thing wrote:

Believe it or not, there are 5 companies with worse customer service than Comcast

http://bgr.com/2014/07/18/worst-customer-service-ranking-in-usa/

You will be happy to know that we(Comcast) are in the process of buying Time Warner, which is #1 on the list. Boy, we are really going to have some haters now.

That's a stupid a$$ survey. It has Walmart at #4 worse. That is ridiculous, Walmart is a GREAT store.

linky thing wrote:

Believe it or not, there are 5 companies with worse customer service than Comcast

http://bgr.com/2014/07/18/worst-customer-service-ranking-in-usa/

If that survey has Walmart as one of the worst companies for customer service, it has no validity at all.

Hey Babe, I've got cable with all the premium channels.

Yeah - that's how you get the chicks, cable tv!

Harry Pi wrote:

Cheap people wrote:

I bet the chicks are banging down the door to get to you.

So the more channels you pay for, the more action you get? This is an inane assertion, even by LRC standards.

Well, not really. Maybe you guys are young but older women will notice if you don't have cable. If a man is past his mid thirties and doesn't have cable, a woman will assume you are either very broke or very cheap. Not something an older woman wants.

runnerFunner wrote:

you are a socialist! People who believe in capitalism and free markets hate cable companies, people who believe in corporate socialism defend them.

There's a difference between a market with an oligopoly and a socialist economic system of a country. In this case if the state (gov) were involved in the internet/cable business, I'm guessing it would be A LOT cheaper due to actual competition being introduced into the market and/or subsidized prices via government supports.

Here is why I hate cable companies:

I was paying $120+ a month for cable. When I started I had all the sports networks and could watch all my local sports teams. My provider got into a dispute with the carrier for the basketball team and baseball team. They stopped carrying those games. The dispute is now in its third year. I got better coverage of sports teams before there was such a thing as cable TV.

I wanted to get Universal Sports so I could watch T&F, Cycling, etc. In order to get Universal Sports, I would have to by an all inclusive sports package that included everything from cricket to Mexican soccer leagues to every freaking NFL game. It would have made my cable bill go up by $45 a month.

And then there are the blackouts every few months over fee disputes with content providers. We lost A&E right in the middle of a Mad Men season for a few weeks. Then IFC got dropped. No Portlandia.

So, why not switch to another provider that has the local sports teams? Well, that provider does not carry tennis channel. My wife is a rabid tennis fan and won't let me switch. So, I just dumped cable and have a Roku box.

Cable TV stinks because you pay them every month but they get to unilaterally decide whether you actually get the content they promised. No other service provider in the world gets that kind of deal with their customers.

Old 880 Guy wrote:

Well, not really. Maybe you guys are young but older women will notice if you don't have cable. If a man is past his mid thirties and doesn't have cable, a woman will assume you are either very broke or very cheap. Not something an older woman wants.

I'll send all the old fat tv watching women to you.

So if a cable company gets in a dispute with a company such as Viacom, it's always the cable companies fault? This is the reason you hate cable companies? What if Viacom wanted to double or triple their rates? Should the cable company just bend over and get fvcked? Are you that dumb that you don't know those companies use hit shows like Mad Men as leverage to raise the rates providers pay? They know that LIS(Low Information Subscribers)like yourself will blame the cable providers. WAKE UP!!!!

Great point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those LIS want cable companies to absorb the added costs while keeping their cable bills the same for 3 or 4 years.

Broke people2 wrote:

Broke people wrote:

If $100-$150 is too much for you to pay for cable and high speed internet, you should get a better job. Maintaining a household costs money. Hell, feeding my dog costs $100/m.

I know many people who spend that on coffee(Starbucks)!

These people should have studied harder in college, their salaries would be higher. If you only make $35,000, life is going to be rough.

Rich guy high five!

You can have them wrote:

Old 880 Guy wrote:

Well, not really. Maybe you guys are young but older women will notice if you don't have cable. If a man is past his mid thirties and doesn't have cable, a woman will assume you are either very broke or very cheap. Not something an older woman wants.

I'll send all the old fat tv watching women to you.

Exactly. What kind of women are you dating that enjoy watching TV? Boring women. I can't think that anybody I dated knew what cable package I had. If they cared, they definitely were wrong for me. I watch maybe 1 hr. of TV a week.

Original Cable Guy wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Cable TV stinks because you pay them every month but they get to unilaterally decide whether you actually get the content they promised. No other service provider in the world gets that kind of deal with their customers.

So if a cable company gets in a dispute with a company such as Viacom, it's always the cable companies fault? This is the reason you hate cable companies? What if Viacom wanted to double or triple their rates? Should the cable company just bend over and get fvcked? Are you that dumb that you don't know those companies use hit shows like Mad Men as leverage to raise the rates providers pay? They know that LIS(Low Information Subscribers)like yourself will blame the cable providers. WAKE UP!!!!

Cable companies should have to do what every other business does when they do not deliver as promised--pay a refund. Cable companies make more money by dropping content providers because they get to charge consumers the same price thanks to their contracts of adhesion. Sure, you can go to another company, but you will have to pay a penalty if you are locked in for a year. Imagine that. Someone does not perform as promised and you have to pay them to get out of the contract!!! No other consumer business in the world is allowed to operate on terms like that.

I only get the cheapest package for cable, which I think is ~10 channels. I only get there because it is cheaper to get that +internet then to get internet alone.

Comcast charges me for a certain bandwidth. I have never gotten anywhere close to the bandwidth they promise me. They are a pain in the ass to deal with any time I have a charge to dispute on my bill (my most common complaint with them, they are always sticking random crap on my bill) or in the rare event I have needed a service call.

Dish or Direct TV aren't viable as internet providers. I could go w/ Verizon but their service for internet is even worse than Comcast. And I would have to get a landline. I haven't had a landline in 8 years and have no need for it. It is more expensive, does less, and is less versatile than my cell. They don't have FIOS here so if I wanted to replace the internet+cable I'd have to deal with one satellite company and one phone company.

So, no, I don't really have a viable option for what I want, as Comcast has a monopoly on the wire into my home.

Offering a-la-carte pricing for channels would be a huge benefit for consumers. The bundling annoys me. I might be willing to pay for ESPN or something, maybe. Probably not since I watch so little but it annoys me that I can either have the bare bones package I have now or pay for a higher tier that I would hardly watch any of.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Offering a-la-carte pricing for channels would be a huge benefit for consumers. The bundling annoys me. I might be willing to pay for ESPN or something, maybe. Probably not since I watch so little but it annoys me that I can either have the bare bones package I have now or pay for a higher tier that I would hardly watch any of.

OMG, you people are stupid!! Let's use Viacom as an example. They own BET, CMT, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Spike, VH1, just to name a few. Cable providers get the best rates when they buy EVERYTHING they have. If you want to pick and choose only CMT or Nick it would cost you more you idiot! If you don't watch a lot of TV, shut the fvck up and don't buy cable. Buy a digital adapter and just get the local channels. Cable is not a necessity, if you are too poor to afford it, don't buy it. Stop whining like a little bitch. I can't afford a Bentley right now, so I don't buy one. I don't go around crying that Bentley's prices are too high.

And.......Companies bundle because it is more profitable. I sell cable I know. TV or Internet only customers are not loyal. They go from company to company, whoever has the best deal. This is not up for discussion, our triple play customers stay longer. They are more stable customers. A TV only customer throws up a red flag. If you don't have a computer you are either old, dumb or poor.

Where in the US does do people leave Verizon for Comcast? Verizon isn't available where I am in Portland OR. As far as I can see its not available in most of the U.S. Recent news I have read have said that in most markets the cable companies have a virtual monopoly in their area. That leads me to ridicule the notion that people are "happy" moving to comcast. I can't say you are wrong necessarily . But there were thousands of Russians under Stalin who you could also say were "happy" getting a 5 year sentence in the Gulag instead of being executed. Its all relative. In France by all accounts people view cable service in the U.S. as an utter joke.

Monopoly pricing.

Monopoly customer service.

Monopoly bundling.

I truly hope that Google chooses my city next for its broadband.