Challenges for ISPs in the United States to provide support

Table of contents

1. Main challenges
2. Rising customer expectations
3. Economic challenges faced by ISPs
4. Limitations in competition and monopolistic practices
5. Obsolescence of customer support systems
6. Impact of infrastructure on service
7. Regulatory and legal pressures
8. Need for modernization in customer support
9. Conclusions on the challenges ISPs face in customer support
10. The importance of modernization in customer service
11. Strategies to improve the customer experience
12. The role of technology in transforming support
13. Future challenges and the need for continuous adaptation

Main challenges

• Meeting expectations of immediacy, self-service, and fast resolution in a service that is increasingly critical to daily life.
• Sustaining rising costs (energy, inflation, and network investments) without degrading customer service.
• Operating in markets with limited competition, where incentives to improve support may be weak.
• Modernizing fragmented systems and data that slow down service and make the experience inconsistent across channels.

Support challenge chain
If you look at support as a system, the challenges tend to link together like this:
– Expectations (immediacy and self-service) → volume goes up and tolerance for delays goes down.
– Infrastructure (capacity/coverage/monitoring) → determines how many incidents come in and how “diagnosable” they are.
– Economics (CAPEX/OPEX) → limits how much can be invested in the network and in service without affecting prices or margins.
– Competition and regulation → change incentives and room for maneuver (what can be promised, how it is communicated, what alternatives exist).
– Support systems (CRM/tickets/data) → determine whether it is resolved on the first contact or repeat contact multiplies.

Growing customer expectations

Reliance on the internet for work, education, and entertainment has raised the bar: users no longer evaluate only the contracted speed, but also service continuity and the quality of support when something fails. In that context, customers expect fast and reliable connections, efficient problem resolution, and digital self-service tools to diagnose and manage incidents.

The problem is that many providers fail to keep up with this leap in expectations with corresponding response times. When service is slow or the support channel “doesn’t respond,” brand perception deteriorates and the risk of customer churn increases. The pressure is twofold: on the one hand, the user wants immediate solutions; on the other, they expect a smooth experience, without repeating information or being passed through multiple handoffs.

In addition, today’s customer compares the ISP experience with that of other digital services: clear portals, case tracking, notifications, and self-management options. If support depends almost exclusively on calls and manual processes, the mismatch becomes evident. In practice, the expectation to “resolve on the first contact” clashes with operations that don’t always have end-to-end visibility into service status, customer history, or the real cause of an outage.

Signs of support saturation
Typical operational signs that the expectation of “immediacy” has already exceeded support capacity (without needing surveys):
– Recontact increases: the customer calls/writes again about the same case because they didn’t receive a clear resolution.
– Contact spikes surge during major incidents, but without proactive communication (service status/ETA), volume multiplies.
– Omnichannel friction grows: the user starts via chat/portal and ends up calling because the digital channel can’t diagnose or escalate with context.
– “First-contact resolution” drops when the agent can’t see network status + history + billing in a single view.

“Slow response times deteriorate brand perception.”
Infobip

Economic challenges facing ISPs

The economy directly constrains ISPs’ ability to sustain robust support. Inflation and higher energy costs squeeze margins, while demand for high-speed broadband forces continuous investment in infrastructure. That capital effort—networks, maintenance, expansions—competes for budget with customer service modernization.

At the same time, the market pushes many providers to keep prices competitive without sacrificing quality. That tension between cost efficiency and satisfaction of thethe user becomes especially complex when the volume of contacts grows: more inquiries due to outages, billing questions, plan changes, or connectivity issues imply more operational load.

Smaller ISPs often face the toughest scenario. With less financial cushion, investment in the network and in customer service tools can be postponed, which ends up feeding back into the problem: slower support, more complaints, and higher churn risk. In other words, the cost of poor service does not always appear as an immediate accounting line item, but it shows up in customer turnover and in the difficulty of scaling operations without proportionally increasing staff.

In this context, every interaction counts. If the service model depends almost entirely on human agents to resolve repetitive inquiries, the cost per contact becomes a drag. That’s why the economic discussion is not only “spend less,” but reallocate resources: invest where it reduces friction and prevents unnecessary contacts, without neglecting quality when the case requires specialized intervention.

Typical decision	Expected benefit	Frequent cost/risk	Direct impact on support
Prioritize network CAPEX (expansion/upgrade)	Fewer structural failures and better baseline experience	Delays investment in customer service tools if the budget is finite	Lowers the volume of incidents in the medium term, but support may remain “blind” if there is no integration
Prioritize support OPEX (more agents/shifts)	Faster response in the short term	Scales linearly with volume; hard to sustain with inflation	Reduces queues, but does not eliminate recontacts if diagnosis and data remain fragmented
Invest in self-service and automation	Lower cost per contact and faster resolution in repetitive cases	If it isn’t integrated, it routes to a human and adds friction	Reduces repetitive inquiries (status, billing, guided reboots) and frees agents for complex cases
Integrate data (CRM + tickets + network status)	Better first-contact resolution and omnichannel consistency	Cross-functional project (IT + operations) with dependency on legacy systems	Reduces repeated data entry, speeds up diagnosis, and lowers recontacts

Limitations in competition and monopolistic practices

In many areas of the United States—particularly rural or underserved areas—consumers have few real provider options. That limited competition impacts service quality and, by extension, support: when the customer cannot easily switch, the incentive to improve the experiencia can weaken.

Research on the sector points to practices and barriers that restrict the entry of smaller players and slow innovation. Among them are legal obstacles that make it difficult for new ISPs to compete in certain markets and restrictions on municipal broadband initiatives in several states, which reduces public or community alternatives.

The result is a difficult cycle: less competition can translate into less pressure to invest in customer service, and the lack of alternatives leaves users with little room to act in the face of recurring failures or frustrating support processes. In more contested markets, by contrast, the support experience often becomes a differentiator: speed, clarity, and effective resolution as arguments to retain and attract customers.

There is also an indirect effect on transparency. When the user feels there’s “nowhere to go,” they tolerate a lack of information worse: outages without explanation, ambiguous timelines, or endless handoffs. In that scenario, support doesn’t just solve technical problems; it also serves a trust function. And when that trust erodes, conflict grows: more complaints, more escalations, and more public and regulatory pressure.

Limited competition in support
What “limited competition” looks like in support (common examples):
– Rural/underserved areas: fewer real alternatives; support absorbs frustration over coverage/capacity limits that can’t be resolved with a ticket.
– Barriers to entry: if small ISPs struggle to enter or expand, there’s less competitive pressure to differentiate through experience.
– Restrictions on municipal broadband: when community/public options are limited, the user’s “plan B” shrinks and the demand for transparency during outages rises.

Obsolescence of customer support systems

A central part of the problem isn’t the willingness to provide better service, but the tools available. Many ISPs operate with support and management systems that were not designed for an omnichannel experience or for a customer who demands self-service. This is compounded when data is fragmented: interaction history, service status, billing, and tickets live on separate platforms.

The consequence is familiar to any user: repeating information on every contact, receiving inconsistent answers depending on the channel (phone, chat, social), and waiting longer than necessary because the agent doesn’t have a “single view” of the customer.

In practice, that “single view” means unifying account, billing, service status, and ticket data within the service flow so that the agent (or self-service) can diagnose and act without jumping between systems. When it doesn’t exist, it althey increase first-response and resolution times, and recontact rises. The lack of integration with CRM-type systems prevents building context in real time and makes it difficult to personalize support.

In addition, technological obsolescence usually translates into manual processes: manual case classification, internal email handoffs, slow validations, and limited traceability. When a major incident occurs, support gets overwhelmed and the system does not help prioritize or automate proactive communications. Thus, the bottleneck is not only human: it is operational.

Oracle has noted that the absence of a holistic view of interactions limits the ability to resolve issues quickly and consistently. In practical terms, every extra minute spent searching for data or confirming statuses turns into longer handling times and a worse experience. And, as a side effect, the volume of recontacts increases: the customer writes or calls again because they did not get a clear solution.

From silos to integrated support
Typical “before vs. after” flow when data is fragmented (and why recontact goes up):
– Before (silos): customer reports an outage → agent verifies identity → looks up the account in one system → opens a ticket in another → checks network status in a separate tool → asks the customer to repeat information → hands off to another team → the customer contacts again because there is no clear update.
– After (integrated): customer reports an outage → the system pulls up account + history + network status + active incidents → it is automatically classified (local vs. mass) → ETA/status is communicated via the chosen channel → if a human is needed, the agent already receives context and suggested actions → it is closed with confirmation and a single record.
Practical checkpoint: if the agent needs “three screens” and the customer repeats information, the design is driving recontacts.

Impact of infrastructure on service

Customer support cannot be separated from the reality of the network. Delivering reliable internet requires substantial investments in infrastructure—including fiber-optic networks, data centers, and maintenance—and the pace of technological progress forces capabilities to be updated frequently. When infrastructure falls behind, support feels the impact in the form of more incidents, more inquiries, and more frustration.

In rural areas, the challenge is greater for geographic and cost reasons: deploying and maintaining the network is more expensive, and that can translate into lower speeds or less stable service. In those contexts, support becomes the “face” of the structural problem: even if the agent provides good service, they cannot always offer an immediate solution if the limitation is coverage, capacity, or maintenance.

Infrastructure also affects the quality of diagnosis. If the ISP does not have cwithout modern monitoring tools and integration between the network and customer care, support works blind: the customer reports “slow internet,” and the system does not provide enough context to distinguish between a local failure, congestion, an equipment problem, or a general incident.

Andina Link underscores that the speeds demanded today require substantial investments. In practice, that means the customer experience depends on two gears: the network (to prevent failures) and support (to resolve them). If one falls behind, the other becomes overloaded. And when both fall behind, the result is an experience the user perceives as abandonment.

Rapid Incident Diagnosis
Quick diagnosis checklist (so you don’t treat everything as “slow internet”):
– Is it a local customer problem? (device off, wiring, Wi‑Fi, router/ONT) → self-service guides and basic tests.
– Are there signs of congestion/capacity issues? (peak hours, intermittent degradation) → review node/segment metrics and communicate realistic expectations.
– Is it a widespread incident? (multiple reports in the area, network alarms) → activate proactive communication (status/ETA) and prevent each customer from “opening their own case” without context.
– Is it billing/account-related? (suspension for payment, plan change) → resolve in the same flow with account access and clear policies.
– Control point: if support cannot answer “is it widespread or local?” within minutes, network-care integration is incomplete.

Regulatory and legal pressures

ISPs operate in a demanding regulatory environment, with federal and state rules that affect pricing, privacy, and service quality. These rules seek to protect the consumer, but they can also limit flexibility to innovate or adjust support operations quickly, especially when it comes to alternative provisioning models or network expansion.

A sensitive point is the legal framework that, in several states, restricts municipal broadband initiatives. According to analyses cited in the research, these restrictions reduce competitive options and, by extension, market pressure to raise support standards. At the same time, the existence of legal barriers to entry for smaller providers can consolidate low-competition scenarios.

In day-to-day support, regulatory pressures are felt in the need to follow processes, safeguard data, and maintain transparency standards. Any failure in service —for example, inconsistent information or delays— can escalate into formal complaints and increase legal and reputational risk.

The challenge, then, is to balance compliance and agility. Support teams need to operate with clear guidelines and traceability, but without turning every interaction into a bureaucratic maze. When

regulation combines with obsolete systems and fragmented data, operating costs rise and the customer experience worsens—exactly the opposite of what consumer protection aims to achieve.

Balances between regulation and support
Typical tensions between regulation and support operations (and how they show up):
– Transparency vs. speed: communicating status/ETA reduces anxiety and repeat contacts, but requires reliable data and consistent messaging.
– Privacy vs. personalization: more contextual service requires integrating data; without good data governance, what the agent can see/use is limited.
– Traceability vs. friction: logging and auditing interactions protects both parties, but if the flow is heavy, it lengthens times and worsens the experience.
– Standardization vs. human judgment: clear guidelines prevent inconsistencies, but complex cases need escalation and agent autonomy.

Need for modernization in customer support

Modernization emerges as a cross-cutting response to almost all of the problems above. Digital transformation pushes ISPs to incorporate tools such as chatbots, self-service portals, and analytics to improve efficiency and satisfaction.

For that modernization to be credible in operations, it usually requires end-to-end automation in repetitive cases (for example, service status inquiries, billing, or tickets) and clear escalation to human agents when the case is ambiguous or sensitive. Without that design, the “digital channel” ends up being just an antechamber that adds friction. The logic is clear: automate repetitive inquiries, offer guided diagnostics, and reduce the call center load, without losing human capacity for complex cases.

Infobip highlights the importance of digitizing the customer journey. In support, that can mean the user checks service status, restarts basic processes, manages their account, or receives updates without waiting for an agent. When it works, the benefit is twofold: the customer resolves issues faster and the ISP reduces operating costs.

But modernizing is not just “adding a chat.” It requires investment, know-how, and—above all—integration with internal systems: billing, network status, tickets, and customer data.

This point is key because data fragmentation and operational silos are one of the most repeated causes behind inconsistent experiences across channels: without CRM-type integration and without shared context, support asks for the same information again, routes the customer from one channel to another, and takes longer to resolve. Without that integration, automation is limited to generic responses and ends up handing off to a human, without saving real time.

There is also an organizational dimension: training and development of the workforce to handle complex cases and theirreview digital tools. A well-trained team, supported by integrated systems, can increase first-contact resolution and reduce repeat contacts. In a sector where the support experience influences customer retention, modernization stops being an “IT” project and becomes a business strategy.

Gradual modernization of support
A phased process to modernize support without “breaking” operations:
1) Useful self-service (not just FAQs): service status, guided reboots, connectivity tests, basic billing.
– Checkpoint: if the portal can’t answer “is there an outage in my area?”, it will keep driving calls.
2) Human escalation with context: when the case is ambiguous/sensitive, the agent receives history + network status + actions already attempted.
– Checkpoint: if the customer repeats data or tests, the context transfer failed.
3) Data integration (CRM/tickets/network/account): a “single view” for omnichannel consistency.
– Checkpoint: if each channel opens a different ticket for the same problem, a unified identifier and workflow are missing.
4) Proactive communication during incidents: notifications, ETA, updates, and closure.
– Checkpoint: if volume spikes during outages, communication isn’t absorbing demand.

Conclusions on the challenges ISPs face in customer support

The importance of modernization in customer service

Support challenges at U.S. ISPs are explained by the combination of rising expectations, economic pressure, demanding infrastructure, limited competition, and a complex regulatory framework. At that intersection, modernizing support is not a luxury: it is the way to sustain quality without costs skyrocketing. Digitalization and data integration make it possible to move from reactive, fragmented service to a more consistent, resolution-oriented experience.

Strategies to improve the customer experience

The strategies most aligned with the identified problems aim to: enable real self-service (not just FAQs), speed up response times, reduce repetition of information through a unified customer view, and improve first-contact resolution. It is also key to communicate better during incidents: when infrastructure fails, clarity and case traceability reduce frustration and repeat contacts.

The role of technology in transforming support

Technology can absorb the volume of repetitive inquiries and provide context to agents, but its impact depends on integration with internal systems. CRM and dataCentralized systems help avoid silos, while automation and analytics make it possible to prioritize and anticipate problems. In an environment of rising costs, operational efficiency becomes inseparable from the customer experience.

Future challenges and the need for continuous adaptation

As society’s and the economy’s dependence on the internet grows, the user’s tolerance threshold will continue to drop. ISPs will need to adapt continuously: invest in infrastructure where it is critical, maintain regulatory compliance, and, at the same time, modernize support so it is faster, more consistent, and scalable. The gap between those who achieve this and those who do not will be reflected in satisfaction, reputation, and retention.

Connected and Proactive Support
Final synthesis (what changes now / what to watch):
– What changes: support stops being “a call center” and becomes an operational layer connected to network + data + proactive communication.
– What to watch: recontact and omnichannel consistency (if they rise, there are silos); spikes in incidents (if they explode, communication/status is lacking); ability to quickly distinguish local vs. widespread (if not, integration with monitoring is lacking).
– What usually delivers the highest return: integrating data and enabling self-service that truly closes repetitive cases, with well-designed human escalation.

Providing support at U.S. ISPs requires balancing these factors without losing consistency across channels. From Suricata Cx’s perspective, the answer lies in operationalizing hybrid AI-and-human models with real integrations into the ISP’s data and processes, to speed up resolution and sustain trust when service fails.

This approach is based on recurring operational patterns in telecom and ISPs: automate what is predictable, keep human control when it matters, and connect support with the systems that truly determine service and account status.