At the FCC, we’ve done a representative national survey to find out how satisfied consumers are with their Internet service and what goes into the decision to switch or stick with an ISP. We’re releasing the results of that survey today. It shows that Americans are largely pleased with their Internet service, but have some cause for dissatisfaction – and face obstacles that make it hard for them to switch ISPs.
Our survey found that 38 percent of Internet users have changed service providers in the last three years, more than half of them for a reason other than changing residences. The majority of Internet users seem to be satisfied with their service; most people who haven’t switched say they haven’t even considered it seriously. Still, 38 percent is a significant number, and one that deserves further exploration.
What makes people want to change providers? Two things: Price and performance. Nearly a quarter of home Internet users are dissatisfied with the price they pay for service, and 47 percent of those who switched ISPs said price was a major reason. Even more – 49 percent – said that a major reason they switched was to get a faster or higher performance Internet connection.
Moreover, the survey showed that a sizeable number of people would consider switching ISPs if it was easier to do. They’re deterred not only by the hassle, but by financial considerations – the need to put down a new deposit, pay a set-up or installation fee, or pay an early termination fee. Early termination fees are currently less common for ISPs than for cell-phone service, but they’re still a factor.
This survey, together with earlier data we’ve reported, underscores how much consumers need clear information to help them make smart choices about Internet service. Speed is a major factor that leads people to switch ISPs – but how many of us really understand what speed we’re getting? We previously reported that 80 percent of Americans don’t know their broadband speed, and today’s survey found that most say their monthly bills aren’t clear about speed either. If ISPs are going to compete on speed – which will be good for consumers and good for the country’s broadband infrastructure – then consumers need better information on what speed they need and what speeds they’re getting.
The same is true of price and fees. We’ve found previously that many cell-phone customers don’t know the early termination fees that they’re subject to. As some ISPs start instituting these fees as well, they need to ensure that consumers are fully informed and can factor these fees into their decisions.
Competition among ISPs, like competition in other markets, is good for consumers and good for service providers. And clear information will help consumers make the smart choices that allow competition to work.
We’re interested in your own experience: Have you switched ISPs, or thought about doing so? Post a comment to let us know your views.
(This is cross-posted on the Official FCC Blog.)
I would switch from Comcast, as it costs a lot for speeds that can be unreliable. However, the other area provider (RCN) doesn't service my building. It seems like Comcast and RCN have divvied up the blocks in Boston so you can only go with the one "assigned" to your address :(
I would love to have the luxury of being able to choose among the local DSL or cable monopoly, but both where I live now and where I used to live do not even have those options. The cable company refuses to upgrade their lines to support high speed internet because population density does not support it and even if they would, they will not run the lines the length of the driveway (1400ft) to get cable to the house. DSL is not an option as we are too far from a CO and even a dial-up line will only get 28.8k as the line quality is too poor. We are only 4 miles from the county seat and only 20 miles from either Cleveland or Akron but the best we've been able to do is rig wireless equipment from our silo, relayed through 3 towers, to a town 10 miles away in order to get even 1mb, and that's not reliable. For years we've watched broadband speeds increase in other areas while there is no effort whatsoever to reach underserved areas. Suburban areas that already have DSL/cable/FiOS/4G as options don't need the help, the rural areas do, and it's killing small logistics, manufacturing, and agricultural businesses that need online billing, accounting, or other critical services.
I think any time a company is granted a monopoly on physical infrastructure and right of way, it should also be given a mandate to provide broadband internet service to everybody in it's served area within a year. If it does not, then a local municipality should be able to implement their own service without legal interference from the telecom that won't provide service. Don't let the telecoms get away with giving us any crap about cost of doing business and operations .. giving everybody the option of broadband will create way more jobs, businesses, innovation, and opportunities than anything a telecom will provide.
I wrote a lengthy comment here previously that was moderated away but I'll try again with a shorter gist .. The conversation of switching and why is premature. Before that conversation is relevant, there need to actually be options. Frequently there is no choice at all (both locations I have lived in two states, there have been no options, including dialup as the lines were of such low quality that the connection was untenably slow), or a choice between two monopolies with a requirement of bundled services to get a reasonable price just for broadband.
Follow the model of electricity, mandate the physical infrastructure, and decouple it from the uplink providers. Then, and only then, will actually see competition. What we have now is either absent or a farce. I'll give you a hint .. if the telecoms complain about it, it's probably good for We The People.
I was shocked to see that the county in Oklahoma I live in (Pontotoc) supposedly has a 98% coverage rate. If you consider that they all live in the city limits of the only town over 15,000, then perhaps that's correct. They have cable internet.
The rest of us have to get satellite broadband - if we can afford it. And there may be only one or two providers for that. Not much of a selection. And if one doesn't provide the speed they are supposed to, there's the early termination fee--and why take the chance that another provider will be better?
As a farmer/rancher, I'd like to be able to take advantage of broadband, but it's not financially feasible.
I have wimax service. I get from 25kbs to 1.2 mbs I still see adds for this service boasting 6-10 mbs this would make my old pc go yes yes yes. My laptop which wirelessly worked easily at 13 mbs cloggs at 512kbs. I don't want to switch. I've invested over 300$ in the wimax device alone. Let the Internet be freely unlimited and I'll be happy. Yes I'd love to loose 300$ at the least to get Internet at real paid for 3 mbs downloads. However. I have had RCN and COMCAST rip me off for paying for the same thing thru wires as I am getting wirelessly. Bemused.
We have been trying to convince Comcast to come down our road (1 mile to our house from the nearest cross-street that they service) for years. They say no every time, even though we got a petition together from almost everyone on our road saying that they would ditch HughesNet (or other satellite/dialup provider) to use Comcast. They still said no. It is very frustrating living out in the country, since you have no leverage with the cable providers
I wish I had an option for true broadband. My only option for "high speed" is satellite, which tops out at 1.5 Mbps download, with FAP caps. Between the caps, the fact that its not truly "broadband" as defined by the latest study, and the latency, its good for surfing, but not much else. I've begged the local cable company to extend coverage to my neighborhood, but they say it doesn't meet their criteria based on the local franchise agreement. AT&T is not even accessible to discuss DSL; no numbers to even contact, and they own the lines so there's not even a competitor I can enlist to ask them to extend DSL.
I'd be happy to start with a single option for broadband. Then we can move on to talking about competition...
It's simple... money. Anyone in their right mind would agree that all Internet Services are too expensive. This is America, we should be the ones that provide a minimum of 20Mbps Download speeds at reasonable prices. I'm sorry but 6 Mbps is crap and is not worth $40 where I live, not to me at least. 16 Mbps is better and should be the price of 6Mbps. All services should have at least a 3 Mbps Upload too. We are coming into an age of Fiber Optics now and I have seen better prices and far superior speeds at the prices we have for ethernet services. Everyone needs to stop being money hungry and provide services at decent rates so that all of can have the things we want. 6 Mbps today is like 256K and should be just as much as dial up or cheaper. People need to stop being greedy, these big companies have more than enough money to expand. If China or Japan can give 1000Mbps (1Gbps) to their average househould for a reasonable price then America should be capable of doing just that for americans.
Where I live I have one choice for "high speed internet" (America can't seem to redefine broadband fast enough to accommodate the lackluster speeds ISPs force on the public) and that's satellite DSL, a prohibitively expensive and notoriously inconsistent service. I have no possibility of residential wimax (available 11 miles from here) cable (available 7 miles from here) or dsl (also available 7 miles from here). Right now I'm forced to rely on AT&T dial-up internet, a service that gets worse with time. Speeds have slowly degraded (starting at consistent 42.2Kbps 8 years ago, currently anywhere from 19.2Kbps to 28.8Kbps now), prices have risen (from $4.95 a month to $24.95 a month) and most recently I've been subject to frequent disconnections (as quickly as 45 seconds after dialing up) and the access number actually being disconnected from service almost daily, playing the 3 tone "We're sorry" disconnection message. I actually have the AT&T DSL availability checker webpage bookmarked under the title "Wishful Thinking" because 6 years of requesting and asking have proven that any chance of service beyond dial up in this area is just that. I've asked 2 AT&T employees if they have any plans to expand the services available in this area within the next few years and both of them told me no.
I wish I could claim to not know my broadband speed, instead I have to complain that I don't have broadband, and short of selling my house and moving 7 miles down the highway, or the government tearing down the regional monopolies and duopolies they've put in place, I never will.
Your site loads slower than others on the internet. So, checking isp speed is an exercise in frustration. The MLAB test crashed my browser (Firefox). This is a strong indication that you people don't really care about the state of the internet, or whether "broadband" services are ripping off Americans (here's a big hint: they are).
All those who posted only proved an incorrigible lack of knowledge in this area of discussion. Public business cannot be expected to meet all demands of all consumers. Implementation of new standards is extremely costly for a business market pushing less than a 15% margin. This whole survey only proves how greedy and market driven America has become. End Point consumers need to educate themselves before asking a government organization to come in and force more costs on this nations businesses who are providing them adequate service.
Congratulations to those of you who have proven the FCC's point on how little the average American knows what they are talking about/asking for.
FCC: Wavecable here is Washington has been an extremely honorable company and I wouldnt change a thing. They provide adequate service given my rural location and have proven consistant over their competition. Many subscribers complain from a general misunderstanding that is no fault of the provider itself.
Is the FCC truly this out of touch with what is going on in the US in terms of Broadband Internet? The reason only 38% switch is because THERE IS NO COMPETITION! What am I going to switch to if I already get Internet from my cable company who has a monopoly in the market I live.
Truly sad to read this - doesn't give me much hope that things will ever change in this country and we will only slip further behind as the rest of the world tramples us.
i have been using at&t now for months and i am most definatly at my breaking point with this company. The internet has not worked steadily for two days in a row to date. i live in the bay area so its not unreasonable for me to expect my internet to work as i am in the middle of one of the largest urban centers in the world. most days i cant get videos to load in under an hour. a movie on netfilx will load in segments each about one minute long. those segments will take up to an hour to play. this seems to be the average level of service. my computer alerts me constanly that the broadban link is unavailabe but the signal strenght will read excellent. We supposedly have the best home connection they offer. other days the router will reset itself and lock us out of our own account. the last time this occured(three to seven days ago) it took me four days to navigate though their phone maze and get this problem solved. The customer service on some days litterally dosent answer. though they claim to be a 24/7 help line. you can pay to talk to someone directly. after a day or so i got through to a person where it became clear that i couldnt get my own account info, without knowing my mothers favorite singer, a "security" question she'd answered several months earlier. needless to say i was not comforted by this idiotic "for my protection" question. after a few more similar encounters i found a manager in india who was willing to help me. several hours later i had restored acess to the internet. on top of all this the company at&t has been charging several taxes that the government never sanctioned. in other words outright perfidy. i have been a party in several class action lawsuits aginst this company. they have also made it clear that they will continue to do this as the profit from it is greater then the cost of the settlements. Trust me do not use AT&T
In my area broadband access is available from Verizon and Comcast. If this is true competition then I guess i'm screwed. Both of the players keep a close eye on each others pricing, as the result both offer similar pricing with similar features and capabilities. How are these differentiators from a consumers point of view? They might as well be one company with two different logos (DSL and Cable being the only key differentiators). Both offer Video/Cable, Voice, and Internet Access - both offer tiered services. This is an oligopoly?.
Yes barrier to entry make it difficult for new business to enter the space, and other regulations that make it difficult also, all in all it seems that I as a consumer has no choice but to be at the mercy of these 2 providers. The fact that we are promoting the Internet as the way of doing almost everything - the paper pushers at FCC seldom see the reality and are on cloud 9 crafting up new strategies with no feet on the street to address the needs of the consumer.
And the montly renting fees? the specialized cable box if you get voice services (Comcast). Fees levied by the FCC, and others - come on now.
Just because the FCC understands consumer challenges, doesn't mean they have the intent to resolve those challenges.
FCC - Frequently Careless and Confused
"Guest says:
December 06 2010 at 2:55 PM
I've been using AT&T DSL at 100 MBPS. for over two years,around the world in a second,now with 100 % HD video & 5.1 Surround sound."
Congratulations on being one of the 80% of Americans that don't know their broadband speed...
we are going to talk the broadband talk for another 10 or maybe 20 years instead of doing something about making sure americans has access. I am getting so tired of this whole crap, that I am about to forget the internet ever exist. My wife works from home and can only download 5GB, AT&T rationing. I went over 5GB, .7GB and had to pay $356.00, way to america, the greed factor is intact...
We've had high-speed cable for quite some time and I cannot imagine swapping. The price isn't ideal, it is on the high side, but we do get really great service so I feel that it's worth it. The absolute BEST thing about our ISP is that I can get a real live human being on the phone 24/7 if I have issues with the service. And I have tested that by calling at ridiculously late hours (i.e. 2 or 3 AM) and there really is somebody there. Even better... the tech support people are right here in the good ol' US of A, not outsourced!! Whenever I'm tempted by another ISPs lower prices, I remember that little fact and realize that I've got a pretty good deal.
I would happy "switch" if there was any competition. But the policies that have granted exclusive monopoly access for telephone customers have ensured that there IS NO alternative. While some customers can trade off between Cable and Telephone for broadband; there is no real trade off between Satellite TV and Telephone for broadband. Satellite services @22.5K miles adds most of 1000ms of total ping time latency rendering it useless of many key internet scenarios. And Satellite, like all Wireless / Cellular ISP services is "shared non-switched half-duplex bandwidth". And that does not scale well -- resulting in severe net neutrality issues including bandwidth restrictions and usage restrictions.
Many people have NO option to switch to switch -- we are stuck with our Telco unless the rules change.
i agree with this
It would be nice if that caught on & became the norm, but I'm not holding my breath. It's not like any government agency is going to hold the big companies accountable for their actions.
I wish I could claim to not know my broadband speed, instead I have to complain that I don't have broadband, and short of selling my house and moving 7 miles down the highway, or the government tearing down the regional monopolies and duopolies they've put in place, I never will.
I've been using AT&T DSL at 100 MBPS. for over two years,around the world in a second,now with 100 % HD video & 5.1 Surround sound.
I wish there were options! My friends in metro areas, like Boston, can switch providers and do compare and make moves based on both price and performance. In a non-metro area (SE MA/Cape) my neighborhood has only one option - Comcast - which charges through the nose and offers incredibly inconsistent performance (from pretty good on some days to turtles and snails on others). But if we want ANY service, that's what we're stuck with. Competition is a beautiful thing!
Heck ya if there was Verizon DSL was available again"ran out in Oct 09", or even better FiOS or cable. Right now I am on Virgin Mobile 3G but were I live the tower is slow my day time download rate go from 10KB/s - 70KB/s depending on the time of day and at midnight and on it goes from 100KB/s to 200KB/s. It does keep me off of Dial-up and satellite internet. I just wish there was a landline broadband because on wireless I can't do what I like which is Gaming online on my PC and Playstation 3 with Friends and Family. I also like to make maps for CoD4 but they range around 30MBs and I have had trouble with the upload staying stable and not corrupt. I would have to compress and split the file into 2MB sections
I posted broadband.gov in the links on my blog.
markitzero.site90.com
Heck ya I would like something better then having to go off of a mobile broadband that can be unstable at times for data.
Their are NO BROADBAND PROVIDERS WHERE I LIVE TO CHOOSE FROM!!!
God.. if i had some sort of broadband, i would not even care what speed i got exactly as long as it was faster than dial up... as long as web pages loaded of quickly, and i could do all i need fast enough, i could care less about a lot.. right now.. i'm back on dial up.. out in these damn woods.. i hate it... i hate it so much.. so slow...
I hope broadband does get here soon...
Where I live we have access to Satellite internet and 3g Wireless (if you buy the $100's in antennas, amplifiers, etc to get it to barely work). If you try to sign up for wireless 3g service, they will tell you that it wont work and discourage you from ordering simply because, it wont work without going the extra mile and climbing up on your roof to hang an antenna. Even then, with all of that, my download speeds are 0.23mb/sec according to speedtest.net.
ANY form of broadband other than those two choices would be 100% better in terms of speed, reliability, and data stability. 3g as well as Satellite are also very bandwidth-limited-meaning we cant download 'too much' or we get charged overage charges or simply have the already slow speed reduced to a crawl.
Any type of broadband would be great.
You bet I would switch in a heartbeat, but I only have one provider in my area, which is a satellite connection. You people should feel lucky you have dsl. You think dial up is slow!
If the FCC is allowed to grow it's teeth from 'neutrality' (think speak) the internet in this country is doomed. Let the market and consumers sort out who gets what bandwidth.
I plan to switch to a small local provider that is actually committed to respecting my privacy and values *real* net neutrality. I'm happy to pay a bit more for a slightly slower connection if it means working with a company with some %@#! ethics.
It would be nice if that caught on & became the norm, but I'm not holding my breath. It's not like any government agency is going to hold the big companies accountable for their actions.
I've been an Internet user since the days of Compuserve and 2400 baud modems (ancient by today's standards). In the past I have been a subscriber to both cable and DSL. In my online business I need broadband service since I refuse to pay for traffic and need <a href="http://freemasstrafficreview.net">free mass traffic</a> to earn online. I left cable because of the cost. I did not want a bundled package (I don't care about Premium cable channels). I switched back to DSL which still gives me high speed Internet access and good performance. I also found DSL easier to manage (I moved 3 times in the last 5 years).
the only thing that would make me switch would be if the service became poor or slow.
0.23 mpbs download for over $80 a month. The cable company owns the whole area and we have no choice. HTC won't allow its DSL customers to recieve enough signal to use Netflix or Hulu because they offer pay-for-view and Upgraded HD services. The monopoly situation is not American capitalism it's stealing and fraud. Having to pay extra for drinking water, TV reception and justice is not my Idea of the "American Dream".
I wish I had options here, there is only medaicom cable and 56k dialup, I have the up to 20mb download and 1.8-1.9 up I usually always have the upload right but the download has horrible slowdowns right now I am getting 2-4mb down and when I am having this slowdown my ping and jitter is horrible since and when I try to go and play on the game server I rent instead of pinging 38-44 (what it does when I am getting the speeds I pay for) I will ping over a 100 and its back and forth jumping from about 80-120 skipping everywhere. I would give anything to get a good DSL service in here that is what most of the others in my gaming clan use where they live and they never have slowdowns always ping the same. But when a company has no competition they don't care, all they want to do is send techs out here and they have replaced everything already instead of fixing what is really wrong which is the node can't support the bandwidth when alot if customers get online.
My wife and I decided to switch ISPs because we weren't getting the bandwidth we were paying for through Verizon's DSL internet service (supposedly because of infrastructure issues coupled with our physical distance from the DSLAM).
We cancelled our Verizon internet service (which had been bundled with phone service) and are now very satisfied with the bandwidth of Charter cable internet. We are getting what we paid for.
As we transition to increased streaming entertainment (Netflix, Youtube, etc.), more bandwidth is essential. Also, my wife is a telecommuter and therefore requires a significant amount of bandwidth to maintain connectivity via a corporate VPN in another state as well as VOIP.
Previously, our 200-250KB/s Verizon DSL speeds (in a 1MB/s service) was constantly saturated by our daily internet needs and often failed outright. Raising pay tiers with Verizon did nothing to alleviate this issue - which was explained as a physical service limitation (line noise, distance to DSLAM, etc.). Basically, Verizon seems to have felt no need to invest in upgrading their infrastructure.
Currently, we are paying for and receiving 40MB/s down and 2MB/s up through Charter cable internet. We are very pleased so far.
If only there were options. Getting price gouged for mediocre service from AT&T $50.00 for 6Mbps vs the competition if they would just lay the cable 34Mbps for the same $50.00. I mean there is both comcast and charter in this area, heck the charter office is literally 1.78 miles away. Only have one choice..help free us from this tyranical grip of AT&T.
This has to be one of the most idiotic articles ever written. I'd switch in a heartbeat if I had a choice. I have one choice for broadband...Verizon DSL. So I'm pretty much screwed. Even though the service is slow and quality sucks I have no other options. Don't expect the FCC to even care though. I was considering moving to a wireless broadband service. But now that the FCC just passed the "fake" net neutrality rules I can't even do that. You know it's only a matter of time before the monopolies running the wireless access in this country will start to gouge us more for less service. We won't be able to use any app we want, they will force companies to pay for top performance and we'll have to pay more for it.
The FCC cares about big business only. They do not give 2 craps about the people they are supposed to be looking out for.
I would like to know why we have so few broadband options in Manhattan New York. You'd think that we'd have plenty of choices, but even though we are resident in the heart of Manhattan, we have right now TWO choices -- Time Warner or Clear. The Time Warner service has been steadilly deteriorating over the past year and the broadband reliability is unacceptable now -- with frequent total dropouts. As a result, we are experimenting with the only other alternative, Clear which is, hard to believe as it is, even worse. What happened to the concept of choice in an open market society? It looks to me like the market has been carved into monopolies that have no competitive incentive to deliver good service to customers.... Where is the FCC in all of this? Where is the monopoly protection?
There are no true broadband choices where I live, otherwise I would switch in a heartbeat. I had satellite, but the monthly cost was steep for speeds that were slower than dial-up and a small daily download limit (450mb limit per day? Gimme a break). I switched to mobile broadband thru Verizon, but it's still too expensive for limited bandwidth (5gb per month limit for close to $70/month after taxes). I wish I had DSL or cable. I live 4 miles from a major city limits. There are businesses all around me and my 4 neighbors. Even the Comcast technician said that cable is 'all around us', but it's not on our block. We're in this bubble, it seems, and neither Comcast nor Bellsouth/ATT DSL want to spend the money to run lines to our homes, despite it being available to all the businesses and neighborhoods within a mile of us. It's incredibly frustrating to be saddled with expensive, limited bandwidth and data caps, with no options for something better.
The big problem for Americans that have a choice is there are only two choices for terrestrial internet; Cable or DSL in a vast majority of major markets. Rural markets are worse as the further away you are from the phone company's switch the less choice you have.
What happens when there are only two providers? Both companies lock tiers and prices. Basic, Regular, and Fast are all the same price between companies even though the throughput through cable is often much faster than DSL. Neither company has incentive to upgrade their equipment to provide faster service as they've got a captive audience without choice.
Something has to change. Clearly the free market hasn't helped American consumers when it comes to what should, in 2011, be considered a utility. For the past year there have been murmurs of ISPs wanting to implement usage caps. This will do nothing but stifle innovation and broadband adaption.
At the very least somebody, I'm looking at YOU, FCC, has to step up to the plate and regulate what exactly can be marketed as 'broadband' or 'high speed internet' with speed and uptime minimums. Promote rollouts to the broadbandless with tax breaks for the companies that serve underpopulated areas just like you did with telephone service not very long ago.
I have changed my ISP because of very poor Service. Once I have to take an online course from www.onlinetrafficschoolus.com for insurance discount. I could register into the course fine, but problem started when I need to log into the course. I could log into the course but could not move forward in the course I thought there some issue with course provider and approached them them I cam to know what is my problem. Internet speed, till then I was thinking that I am paying for great service but only then I came to know that I am paying more for very less speed.
Customer Service! You left out customer service and reliability.
Until recently I was an AT&T DSL customer. I was averaging about one outage every two months for years. The outages typically lasted a day and a half -- until they could get technician to visit and do whatever he or she did to make it work again for a while.
So I tried 4G from Clear. The prices were comparable. The bills were understandable. The speed was great. The reliability --- well not so much. With Clear I averaged at least one outage every day, usually lasting about five minutes or so. This is enough to totally disrupt my work and/or play over the internet.
Cable didn't appear to be an easy option. It would require waiting for a technician to install the cable and signing up for a long term contract. So I went back to AT&T and they signed me up for their "new" DSL service, U-verse. It took over a month lapsed time and cumulative over six HOURS on the phone to AT&T customer service (counting the time listening to bad music on a speaker phone) to get AT&T to get it right, but I now have decent (and so far reliable) service: roughly 1.5M down, 300K up.
Customer service and reliability will win my heart, mind, and pocketbook if ever there is a carrier/ISP that can provide it.
As someone else said, the reason most people do not switch is that they have no choice! Where I live, Wr have VERY limited options...1 cable provider (where we pay for "speeds up to 12 Mbps, but rarely actually get over 1 Mbps) or 1 DSL option, which, according to neighbors who have it is a little better, but not much. Unless you live in a large metropolitan area, this is often the case. I have had my ISP (Mediacom) out on several occasions because of a variety of service issues related to my cable and currently have an amplifier on my line for that...when I called to request a service call to check my internet signal (since we consistently get <1Mbps download speeds, even in the middle of the night), I was told it would cost me $29!!! When I try to explain my download speeds and I should be getting more than that, I was told "Well, there's no guarantee. 12 is the maximum with the basic package. You can upgrade to our Max package to boost your speed". Why on earth would I pay more when they can't even deliver anything CLOSE to what I'm paying for now??? And, unfortunately, as I said, I have no choice but to keep paying their exorbitant fees for consistently horrible service! It's highway robbery and there's no accountability because nobody will do anything!
Internet Service: Would You Switch – and Why?
I would switch for better ISP for stable connectivity. I Would switch ISP for affordable price. Most of the time I need to work from home for my very small business http://aseawater.teamasea.com that I need to keep in touch people through email daily basis so I would switch ISP that I can afford and have no down time. I hope you don’t mind if I write about it on my blog and link back to you?
I wish I had access to more choices, but living in a rural area the only "broadband" I can get is Hughesnet, and it sucks. It's 59.99 per month, .5 mbits/s download, .05 mbits/s upload, and a 225mb limit per day