site Search:


 
   
story category
Cable Beating Telcos In Phone Service
According to latest study by J.D. Power and Associates
by Karl Bode Thursday 17-Sep-2009 tags: competition · business · cable · VoIP
J.D. Power and Associates has released their 2009 Residential Telephone Customer Satisfaction Study, which breaks down the best performing residential phone providers in four geographic regions (east, west, north central and south). The rankings judge carriers on five criteria: customer service; performance and reliability; cost of service; billing; and offerings and promotions.

Click for full size
Carriers are ranked on a 1,000-point scale, and according to the firm, overall customer satisfaction with residential voice service is around 653 points, an 18 point jump from their 2008 rankings. It's once again interesting to note that despite being relative newcomers to the voice space, cable providers continue to outrank phone companies when it comes to performance.

Cox Communications ranked highest in the east, though Cablevision also scored high marks. Cox also topped the charts out west. Bright House Networks took top honors in the southern region, while Wide Open West was the highest ranked voice operator in the north central markets. Comcast, which is now the nation's third largest residential phone operator, didn't fare particularly well in any market.

The study has a few other factoids of note, including that time spent on hold to resolve service issue averaged 8.8 minutes, down from 9.5 minutes last year. Despite improved service, J.D. Power says the number of customers who left their provider increased to 10 percent from 9 percent in 2008.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

ThrowDemsOut
If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4

1 edit

Leaders & Losers; BUT overall tightly grouped

The satisfaction ratings have a couple outliers in 1 region or another, but for the most part the results are fairly tightly clustered around the average ranking.

And that average (653 out of 1000) shows that landline phone providers are pretty pathetic overall.

Charter & Windstream turn in more pathetic rankings than the others.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13

Qworst

haha, »www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratings/···ngs/west

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

Curious About Video

I wonder how the TELCO's fare when comparing video. In this case, the incumbent video providers have all the taxes and fees while the TELCO's have new infrastructure and lack those annoying little "add-ons". Personally I think the best you can do right now is get your voice from the cable company, your video from the telephone company and flip for Internet access.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:29
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech

Re: Curious About Video

Ironically, cable operators are ranking higher than phone companies in providing phone service, while phone companies are currently ranking higher than cable companies in providing TV service.

Some of it's because new entrants have to be competitive, and because people have deeply held beliefs about phone and cable operators. Should be interesting to see these rankings in five years...
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink

Re: Curious About Video

said by Karl Bode:

people have deeply held beliefs about phone and cable operators.
I'd rather get cable TV service from the phone company than phone service from the cable company.
--
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

N3OGH
Certified GLG-20
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Curious About Video

While I agree with this statement, it really is a "you got chocolate in my peanut butter, NO you got peanut butter in my chocolate" thing for most people.

Since Telcos that provide TV are forced to pay franchise fees (taxes, really) cable operators should have to charge all the traditional land line charges that go with providing phone service.

Personally, I don't consider phone offerings by Comcast, Time Warner, or Cox as VOIP. They are in a TECHNICAL aspect, but from an end user's viewpoint there is little difference. The playing field should be equal in that respect.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…
Heated Man

join:2009-06-18
Cleveland, OH

Re: Curious About Video

Cable phone service does charge all the same FCC and FUSF charges the phone companies do. And Cable is not VOIP that is Vonage crap!

backfeed
is giving feedback

join:2002-12-16
Peru, IN
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Bobcat:

said by Karl Bode:

people have deeply held beliefs about phone and cable operators.
I'd rather get cable TV service from the phone company than phone service from the cable company.
Interesting....I was thinking just the opposite. Might be different by carrier, location etc.
I am pretty very happy with Comcast triple play
--
There are 10 types of people. Those who can read Binary and those who cannot.
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04

Re: Curious About Video

Cablevision sucks donkey balls.

N10Cities
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Lavaca, AR
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx

Cox has worked great for me....

Have used Cox's phone service for about a month now. Have been very impressed with the quality of service so far. Even had customer service call me up last night asking how everything was going.

Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika

1 edit

Re: Cox has worked great for me....

Ditto, I have their VoCable service and it works great and is cheaper than AT&T (former Pacbell).
clecssuck

join:2002-01-23
Birmingham, AL

I'm just saying...

I think there's a chance that most cable phone users have recently switched atleast within the last year or two and I'm sure a case can be made that someone that just signed up for a new service or just made a new purchase is the happiest they'll ever be with that decision at that time. As time goes on your happiness and enthusiasm does wear down a bit. .
--
We'll never forget Dale Earnhardt #3

SDKiwi
VIP
join:2002-05-27
El Cajon, CA
kudos:2

Re: I'm just saying...

said by clecssuck:

I think there's a chance that most cable phone users have recently switched at least within the last year or two .....and I'm sure a case can be made that someone that just signed up for a new service or just made a new purchase is the happiest they'll ever be with that decision at that time. As time goes on your happiness and enthusiasm does wear down a bit. .
I would say the 1 or 2 year comment is much more applicable to Telcos offering TV service. Cox for example has been offering phone service in many systems since 1997.

MTBikerChris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO

CCDV rocks

I have to say my CCDV has been awesome for the last 2 years i even have been locked in to a triple play plan at 33 bucks for a year and it's been at that for 2 years going on 3. Thanks Comcast.

swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:3

What????

What?! No Fairpoint???....Oh wait......
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Perceived "quality" is a delicate brew

Everyone has a mobile phone and we are accustomed to dropped calls, calls that don't go through and foggy sound quality. If cable phone service has more features, cost less, and works "good enough", it doesn't matter if technically, it isn't as reliable as POTS.

An $80 Monster HDMI cable is technically superior to a no-name $8 cable but do you get an experience that's $72 better? In the case of HDMI, absolutely not. There's no difference. It either works or it doesn't. In the case of POTS, I don't think most of us will perceive a difference unless the electric service is out. This means cost and features let cable phone service win.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Perceived "quality" is a delicate brew

Uh...it's not "technically superior". Seriously. There is no difference. Their claims about the materials they use or construction quality are hogwash.
axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

Telcos

Wow AT&T. You telco guys suck at pretty much everything. You suck at 3g wireless, you suck at U-verse TV, your DSL is a joke, and now you suck at POTS. Thats a big load of suck you've got going for yourself there.

I hope upper management is enjoying those fat bonuses.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Telemarketers, etc. are the curse of POTS!

People don't want to be listed in the phone book anymore and they don't want to pay extra to not be listed or for caller ID.
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

satisfaction, perhaps. reliability...?

Unless I had a MONSTROUS battery/generator setup, I would rather go with a POTS landline than Cable or FiOS for a landline phone...

Currently only have a cell, but if bad weather strikes, or whatever chaos, a landline is MUCH more reliable to have.

I guess that "satisfaction" on a survey is not factoring in emergency reliability.

If I end up getting landline service at some point, it'd probably be basic service, no long distance. At this point, LD should be nearly free on landlines.

As much as I do like Cox for internet speed, and the cable TV service in general, I am not at all interested in phone service through them, even if it is good quality, usually reliable, etc. Call it a "deeply held belief" but I would rather have a working phone in a pinch (span of DAYS without power, which happened here a year ago or so...) instead of being at the mercy of a little battery, a modem/gateway, and THEN a phone...

Cox has tried for years to sign me up with their phone service; spam mail, spam email, spam phone calls, reps that insist that I must get it, just about every commercial break with an ad for it... I just don't want it (unless it were completely free, indefinitely... ).

Until I can be assured that Cable/FiOS phone service would work for a WEEK+ ...without electricity from the grid, I'm just not sold. My parents had no power for a week after a massive ice storm hit last year... The landline worked throughout the entire week, no problem... Can't be satisfied with something if it flat out isn't working

All my rambling aside, congrats to Cox for the wins
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom

Bell Shaped Heads

The telephone companies were guaranteed cash flow when the Bell System was broken up in 1982. Telcos started adding crap charges to customers bills with our government's approval.

Telcos have always had a hard time operating like a real business and not a utility. Telephone company management cannot deal with CATV industry that has minimal implementation cost. On the other hand the telephone companies have narrow band high loss copper pairs. Cable companies already have wide bandwidth outside plant. If the telephone companies do not invest the money into upgrading their networks they are doomed. On the other hand my cable service is much less reliable my land line. Now when my cable fails I pick up my telephone and call the cable companies customer dis-service department. If the cable company provided telephone service in my home whenever my cable crapped out so would my telephone service.

Murdoc
Premium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

what about charter?

Were they so bad they just didn't include them?

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit

TWC voice is as good as AT&T POTS... only cheaper

To be fair, AT&T Uverse voice is as cheap as TWC voice, you just have to jump through hoops to get it.

AT&T: POTS ($40 + $5Canada + fees = $58/month) - even if I have wireless / DSL.
TWC: Bundled = $33/month ($99/month tv/voice/ 10Mbps internet). ~45/month standalone

Uverse Voice = $~30/month, but only available IF you purchase Uverse Tv (+45/month for 1 set), and can be bundled to $90 for TV/ 3Mbps/1Mbps Internet/Voice.

I don't care if their 'technology is better', I care if it works and doesn't cost a fortune.

On the list, TWC beats Cable on cost and service, worse on reliability (yeah, I've had outages).. I think its accurate for me.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

jchambers28

join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR

phone service

I have dropped my lad line a long time ago I am all cellular.
nocannothave

join:2006-10-14
Kennewick, WA

Cable phone not a landline?

Why is cable phone service not considered a landline? Specifically, my company asked for work from home employees, but a landline was required, and Charter phone did not qualify.
John104

join:2002-01-07
Pasadena, TX

Landline or cable phone?

Everyone's experience is different. My landline (AT&T)
has never been down in the twenty plus years that I
have lived here. Not even during a hurricane or when
we lost electricity for 10 days. Never had a billing issue
and never called tech support. Can't say the same for
our cell phones (AT&T).
Comcast keeps calling offering cable phone for $14.95
per month for the first year and $44.95 thereafter.
Our landline is $27 per month.
Our cable service is plagued with frequent outages.
Comcast salespeople don't understand why I won't switch.
I don't understand why I would. Maybe someone can
enlighten me. Is there something I am missing?
John104

join:2002-01-07
Pasadena, TX

Re: Landline or cable phone?

Sorry about the formatting in my previous post.
I did something wrong to cause that but I don't
know what. It didn't look like that when I
previewed it. Again, sorry.

Saturday, 11-Feb 10:11:51 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.