 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to jester121
Re: Quit hiring murders and inept peeps True enough, except with cable companies (Comcast in particular), it's totally obvious that they just want money from subscribers and don't care one iota whether you're satisfied or not.
Every other company I've ever dealt with employs at least some folks who have an interest in providing the service they're selling and satisfying the folks who pay for it. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | What, like Sprint? Verizon? 
You're full of hooey. |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | My experiences with both Sprint and Verizon (and every single other provider of any type of service I've ever purchased) is head and shoulders above Comcast. No comparison. Not even close. |
|
|
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to jester121
Exactly... no company 'cares' about you, regardless of what you think, or the impression that they try to give you.
What they do care about is being able to collect money from you for a service (or actual or perceived).
Comcast, in particular attempts to get more money from you by attempting to sell its product as a high end (Lexus vs. Hyundai).
That approach does work for those that are satisfied with their service, or can't justify the cost of switching.
The 'Walmart' approach of cheap service, in general, works well, but not always to the cable/internet industry, even though it is still valid.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | said by en102:Exactly... no company 'cares' about you, regardless of what you think, or the impression that they try to give you. I certainly wouldn't expect a company to care about me - in fact, I'd find it rather creepy if they did. I do expect a company I buy service from to make an effort to provide the service, and to treat me as if they want me to continue buying service. Comcast always seemed eager to point out that I wasn't their customer - that their goal was to satisfy shareholders, not subscribers.
I guess it was only a matter of time until Comcast's attitude of not needing to satisfy subscribers spilled over to one of their customers - the shareholder in the news article. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to JTRockville
But lets compare apples to apples. Our cable system has been bought and sold 4 times in the last 9 years. It's always the same sh*t, just with a different name. Time Warner, Cox, Charter, etc all don't seem to be a whole lot different.
A new company will come in, but usually the same people end up running the show anyway.
Comcast seemed to be the most aggressve of all the companies, and made the most forward progress to our system after taking over from AT&T Broadband. They very quickly added HDTV and DVR service, which were sorely needed in this area (no OTA service). |
|
nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA | reply to JTRockville
Well, there's pre-91 Aeroflot.. and todays United. Other than that, I'd agree. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville:I do expect a company I buy service from to make an effort to provide the service Yes, but lately, it seems they all make much more of an effort to cut costs by NOT providing the service, i.e. trying to supply as little as possible while still keeping the sheep paying (cough*RoadRunner*cough).
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
