Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:19:21 -0500
From: Brenda Denzler
Subject: Satellite provider
My experience with Hughes.net is the opposite of Terrie’s. I have found them to be (1) reliable as long as there is not a thick cloud cover, (2) about as expensive as other providers (which is too expensive, in my books), (3) slower than what they make you think they are going to be, (4) unwilling to provide the customer with any degree of control over the settings on their account’s spam filter, with the result that you simply fail to receive some messages that you know you should be receiving, and (5) using a first tier customer support based in third world countries, which can make it difficult to hear (and understand, sometimes) when talking to them on the phone and which first tier has only “canned” answers to your problems but you have to go through the whole dance with first tier (even though you know they’re not likely to be able to help you) before they will agree to pass your service request up to the folks in second tier.
Their first-tier folks also have a rather irritating cultural custom of appending an apology to the beginning of every other sentence, to the point where I have said, “Look, you’ve apologized three times already. I’m frustrated at this problem I’m having, and your repeated apologies are not helping. In fact, they are irritating me even more. I appreciate your sorrow at my problems, but would you please quit saying ‘I am sorry you are having this problem, m’am’ all the time?”
In short, I hate Hughes.net and use them only because they are the fastest ISP option available to me out here where I live, *because* Embarq (formerly Sprint) has renigged for years on their promise to provide a switching station out here that would improve the quality of our phone service *and*, as an added bonus, give us access to DSL (faster than Hughes.net, I can assure you).
Brenda Denzler, the Disgruntled
[ad#468×60]