In almost every industry, companies find reason to dislike their customer base. And although it's no different in the technology space, it's as if cell phone carriers and ISPs aren't afraid of hiding it. After all, if these companies really liked us, wouldn't they realize that privacy is a major concern and we don't like being bogged down by onerous contracts?

Apparently not.

Cell phone carriers

Surely not everything is awful with the cell phone companies, right? They not only provide you with a service that you use each day, but judging by the popularity of cell phones, it's safe to say they're doing a good enough job to keep customers coming back for more.

But then again, maybe that success is due to the fact that there are very few choices and we're stuck using their services regardless of how we're treated. Think about it: prices, offerings, and policies are amazingly uniform across the board Right now, Verizon Wireless and AT&T—two competitors—are offering same exact plans for the same exact price. Looking for 450 minutes and free nights and weekends? Verizon Wireless will offer it to you for $39.99 and, you guessed it, so will AT&T. And to make matters worse, the prices stay the same with each carrier as you increase your plan.

The cell phone carriers contend that their decision to offer plans at the same prices make for a more competitive environment. According to AT&T, the prices are the same because if they charged more than competitors, they would undoubtedly lose customers, but if they charged less, the impact on the bottom line could be troublesome. "Not to mention," Joe Tassone, cofounder of HPC Development said in an interview, "infrastructure costs for carriers are about the same, creating the same level of expenses, and thus, the same revenue margin."

Of course, the abuse of cell phone companies and their seeming distaste for us goes far beyond pricing concerns. Do they just expect us to forget that Verizon sued the FCC last year because of its aversion to the rules surrounding the 700MHz spectrum? Verizon was upset because it believed open access and open devices would "limit the introduction of new and innovative wireless services." But like most of us, Google smelled a rat. Verizon has since had a conversion of sorts, and has promised to open its network to all lawful devices and applications.

"It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services," wrote Chris Sacca, Google's head of special initiatives. "Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."

And perhaps that's where the real proof is. Sure, these companies are allowed to collaborate with the National Security Agency and illegally monitor calls without any worry of legal recourse, but it's the customers that continue to suffer and the carriers seemingly couldn't care less.

That said, AT&T believes it didn't do anything wrong in collaborating with the National Security Agency and it's doing what's best for the greatest number of customers. And although it has yet to officially comment on the incident, it has continually said that it has always worked within the scope of the law and cannot "comment on matters of national security."

But what about customer satisfaction? According to the Better Business Bureau's latest survey, cell phone companies lead the pack in complaints. In 2006, the industry had almost 29,000 complaints levied against it—more than 4,000 more than the second-place industry—new car auto dealers.

Since 2002, cell phone carriers have consistently sat atop the list for most complaints and all the while, they like to claim that their policy of forcing you to pay $175 to get out of a contract or the draconian rules that lock you into a two-year agreement are for your own good, but who are they kidding? Everything these carriers do is designed to ensure you pay dearly for wanting out of a contract and every time you threaten to leave, you're quickly reminded that you'll be dropping huge sums of cash to do it.

To be fair, the cell carriers contend that the contracts protect the consumer as much as they protect the companies. As one wireless expert who asked not to be named said in an interview, "the contract is designed to protect both parties. Carriers don't want you to leave, but it also provides you with a sense of security knowing the rate you're locked into won't change and you will be getting what you paid for—more than can be said for ISPs."

ISPs

Companies like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and even AT&T, have instituted a number of policies that make it all too easy for us to give them back what we get from them: distaste.

Filters

AT&T has made no secret of its intentions to begin filtering traffic on its network. At this year's CES, James Cicconi, senior vice president, external & legal affairs for AT&T, spoke on a panel about concerns over peer-to-peer technologies that were violating copyrights and ostensibly putting his company in danger. "We are very interested in a technology-based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this," he said while discussing ways to reduce copyright issues. "We recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies. But we are having an open discussion with a number of content companies, including NBC Universal, to try to explore various technologies that are out there."

Cicconi went on to say that his company needs to "find a friendly way to go about doing it", but is there any such way? Ostensibly, his company's plans will revolve around reducing your ability to get what you want, when you want, while surfing the Web. It may work for AT&T and copyright holders that have yet to adapt to the changing times, but it leaves customers in a position where everyone is being victimized because of a select few who engage in illegal file-sharing.

But AT&T doesn't see it that way. Instead, the company is concerned that it will face legal action for allowing peer-to-peer networks run amok on its network and as copyrighted material continues to proliferate across the Web, AT&T believes it needs to find a way to stop its users from engaging in the activity for the sake of its own bottom line.

Customer (dis)satisfaction

Comcast is so bad, it has its own site dedicated to its suckiness. And while it's not unique in its practices, it's well known for its poor customer satisfaction and outlandish policies that aim at preventing us from getting the kind of service we should expect. According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, Comcast led every company in overall customer dissatisfaction in 2004 and 2007. In 2007, though, the ACSI found that as Comcast's customer satisfaction decreased by seven percent, its revenue jumped by 12 percent. And according to analysts, the lack of competition is keeping the company afloat.

"Such pricing power usually comes with some level of monopoly protection and most cable companies have little competition at the local level," analysts contend. "This also means that a cable company can do well financially even though its customers are not particularly satisfied."

For its part, Comcast is trying to fix the PR nightmare it has created over the past few years. The company now has a "ComcastCares" Twitter account where upset customers can send messages to Frank Eliason, a Comcast Outreach Representative, who will do his best to fix the problem as soon as possible. There's no way to tell if it's working, but the fact that Comcast is at least trying, gives us some hope for the future.

Bandwidth caps

Time Warner Cable is currently in the process of testing metered Internet access in Beaumont, Texas because of its concern over a relatively small percentage of its customers using up a large amount of its bandwidth. According to the company, five percent of its customers use more than 50 percent of its bandwidth each month, putting a drain on its overall service.

Under the plan, the company would offer 768kbps downloads and 5GB of data per month, or 15Mbps speeds and a 40GB cap. Time Warner Cable thinks those figures are fair and adequately appeal to those that are looking for simple service to check emails and browse the Web and those that want more advanced service to accommodate more advanced practices. I think it's just another example of an ISP abusing its position as the only cable provider in a certain area and forcing customers into a predicament that isn't nearly as fair as it could be.

But it's quite obvious that Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T don't care. And why should they? With the FCC having created cable/DSL duopoloies across the country, there has been little incentive to worry about customer happiness. Maybe that will change with the advent of wireless broadband networks over the next few years... unless they're owned and controlled by the same players

Slowly, but surely, we've entered into a major predicament. With nary a mention of the RIAA and MPAA, we've found two industries that appear that they couldn't care less about the consumer. And yet, there's no way we can stop it. The combination of a overly-industry-friendly regulatory scheme and collusive practices leaves each of these companies is in a prime position to do what they want, how they want, whenever they want. Sure, sometimes public uproar will get an ISP to backtrack on an unpopular decision, but, for the most part, we're expected to suffer.