Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Electronic Corporate Pages Inc

Phone: (512) 257-1077 12113 Roxie Dr Ste 200, Austin, TX 78729 View Additional Web Addresses

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.


This company offers high speed broadband, wireless internet and web hosting.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Electronic Corporate Pages Inc meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Electronic Corporate Pages Inc include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

1 complaint closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 1
Total Closed Complaints 1

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Electronic Corporate Pages Inc
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: October 31, 2000 Business started: 01/01/1996 Business started locally: 01/01/1996 Business incorporated 01/06/1995 in TX
Type of Entity


Business Management
Tushar Patel, President
Contact Information
Principal: Tushar Patel, President
Business Category

Internet Services Internet - Web Hosting

Alternate Business Names
ECPF Western Broadband

Additional Locations

  • 12113 Roxie Dr Ste 200

    Austin, TX 78729 (512) 257-1077


BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

2/24/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: We have used Western Broadband as our internet provider since moving to Weir, Tx in August of 2014. We have had nothing but problems with the quality of their service and their customer service representatives. We are paying $65 a month for 2 megabytes/sec - this means is that we are paying twice the amount for 1/4 of the service through any other provider. We are told we can pay $20 more a month and be moved up to 5 megabytes/sec. Example: Time Warner Cable charges $29.99 for 50 megabytes/sec. We are in a small town so we have no other choice, but to go with this company if we want internet in our home. We have spent hours upon hours on the phone with tech support to figure out why our internet drops every evening at 10 pm (oddly the same time the company closes), so there is no way to even troubleshoot the problem. When we are able to speak with someone about the problem we are met with rude customer service agents that tell us it is our fault and our problem. That they cannot and will not do anything to help. I asked to speak with a manager and was told that since it is a small company there are no higher ups to speak with, leaving us with absolutely no recourse in fixing the issue. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to be stuck in a contract with a company that refuses to even address the problem. PS It took 20mins to just type out this paragraph it is so

Desired Settlement: Internet service that works since I am paying for it!

Business Response: Tuesday, February 17, 2015  
RE: BBB Complaint ID 10430352 Submitted on 2015.02.03 

We are very sorry for ******’s frustration with the service being provided, and have attempted to work with both ****** and ****** (the owner of 
the account) to resolve the issues to their satisfaction. Western Broadband installed equipment & set up service at ******’s home on July 15th, 
2014. We have confirmation via dated notes from our repair technician on October 30th, 2014 saying the customer was happy with the speeds 
indicated via a speed test after the repair, and via call recordings with ****** ****** on December 15th, 2014, that a speed test performed around 
2pm was better than 5Mbps, which is more than twice the upper limit of sustained speeds for their bandwidth package. The speeds should be 
notated as “megabits,” or Mbps (megabits per second). Upon review of call recordings between Western Broadband employees and ******, we 
determined that our employees were not rude and did not otherwise act in an unacceptable manner. 

Time Warner Cable may charge $29.99, which does not include taxes or other fees. The before-tax price that ****** has been paying for Western 
Broadband service is $49.95. They have an additional charge of $10 per month plus tax that is a loan payment on half of their installation fee. 
Western Broadband offers $100 off the installation fee, to instead be paid in $10 per month plus tax installments for the duration of the 12-month 
agreement. This installment plan was offered to and accepted by ****** at the time of installation, and the $10/mo fee is not part of the monthly 
service price. 

Western Broadband service cannot be reasonably compared to that of Time Warner Cable service, which is not available in their area specifically 
because the area is rural, more difficult to access and with lower population density. Our service is wireless, whereas Time Warner Cable service 
would be physical via in-ground copper or fiberoptic cable, and the two are not comparable because of the nature of wired versus wireless service, 
including equipment expense, exposure and accessibility. It’s our understanding that there is at least one other Internet Service Provider operating 
in the Weir area which may be able to provide service to ******’s home. Due to the rural nature of the area, these providers may only offer 
wireless service as Western Broadband does, and they may or may not be able to provide service to ******’s specific address, depending on line-
of-sight from their closest point-of-presence, which can be impacted by distance, trees, elevation/hills or other obstructions. Only a representative 
authorized by such providers would be able to confirm that ******’s specific address is or is not serviceable. 

We have been graphing their usage since December 12th, 2014, when we were first notified of the “service drops every night at 10pm” issue, before 
which we do not have a record of any complaints from either ****** or ****** since the repair done on October 30th, 2014 (that repair was to re-
mount the transmitting equipment installed on their roof after it had been blown over in high winds). With the monitored graphing of their usage 
we have determined, and communicated to ****** and ******, that the nature of their service issues relates to bandwidth limitations and 
interference from other devices in their home, and not service interruption. At the times they have notified us they are experiencing issues, their 
equipment uptime has extended days or many hours into the past, meaning that service has been continuous and uninterrupted during that time. 
Rather, at the times they report experiencing issues, devices on their personal network have been utilizing their entire bandwidth allowance of 
2Mbps download. 

On December 12th we documented a complaint that “every night at 10pm service stops working.” At that time we documented that the uptime on 
their transmitting equipment was 2 days 15 hours with no unusual traffic patterns, plateaus or bottlenecks. Then at 9am on December 13th we 
documented a voicemail from ****** from around midnight the previous evening stating he was experiencing the same issue. When we checked at 
9am on the 13th, the equipment uptime was 19 hours – meaning the service was not interrupted at the time ****** was experiencing issues – but the 
upstream/upload traffic on their equipment was high at that time, meaning that a device on their network was utilizing bandwidth to upload 
information to the internet, which would therefore impact the speeds experienced on other devices, since their bandwidth allowance must be shared 
between all the devices connected to their personal network. [The bandwidth plan they are on provides for up-to 2Mbps download speeds and up-to 
0.375Mbps upload speeds. When sharing that bandwidth via a personal network as ****** and ****** are doing (with a router), one device using 
part of that bandwidth allowance means other devices on their network will have less bandwidth with which to work. ****** called us back later in 
the day and we determined that there was an interference issue, possibly from other wireless equipment in their home that operates on the same or 
similar 5GHz frequency at which our transmitting equipment communicates. [Other communications on the same frequencies can cause signal 
degradation which can result in slower speeds. That is one of the major differences between wireless service such as that Western Broadband 
offers, and wired service such as that Time Warner Cable may offer.] We attempted to troubleshoot the interference issue but Western Broadband 
cannot be responsible for non-WB equipment, so this troubleshooting was done as a courtesy. We determined that the router ****** uses has the 
ability operate on the 5GHz-range frequency that our equipment communicates on, and could possibly be causing the interference issue. On the 
following day, December 14th, we switched our equipment to a different frequency in an attempt to address their interference issue. On that day, 
our call center technician also determined that ****** & ******’s Dish Network receiver was utilizing some of their bandwidth by wirelessly 
transmitting data over their personal network via their personal router, apparently unknown to either ****** or ******. We were unable to provide 
technical support for either device because they are not Western Broadband equipment. Then, on December 15th, 2014, our call center technician, 
speaking to ****** on the phone, had ****** run a speed test which resulted in download speeds of greater than 5Mbps. We believe that the 
positive results of that speed test were a result of eliminating the Dish Network Receiver from their router’s network, and changing the frequency 
on which our equipment was operating. Because the speed test results were more than satisfactory, we considered the issue resolved at that time. 
The note from our call center technician indicating the speed test results of greater than 5Mbps has a timestamp of 2:15pm on December 15th. 

Then, on December 15th at 5:51pm, a different call center technician notated a call from ****** that had just ended. On that call, ****** started by 
asking to speak with a manager and indicating she was frustrated and prepared to cancel her Western Broadband service. The technician, *****, 
was alone in the office and had no one else available to whom he could transfer ******, so he attempted to help her himself. There was no problem 
with the connection at that time that he could see, and he asked ****** if she was experiencing an issue at that moment, which is a fundamental 
and standard first step in troubleshooting procedure. ****** was not calling from home, and not calling about an issue she was currently 
experiencing, and indicated that she was calling in regards to the “every night at 10pm” issue that we had addressed earlier in the day with ******, 
and which appeared to have resolved itself that afternoon. When ***** was unable to help ****** with a problem that was not currently happening, 
and unable to transfer her to a manager, ****** ended the call, stating she would be switching to another provider. 

On December 16th, 2014, our Network Administrator emailed ****** details of the monitored graphing of their service overnight. In that email, 
****** detailed spikes of usage that would have saturated/maxed out their connection, at times from 5:50pm t 6:15pm, then again from 6:30pm to 
7:10pm, and again at 7:45pm. For the rest of the evening through about 10:30pm, there was ongoing activity, but nothing at a level which would 
have saturated or maxed out their bandwidth. 

Then on December 17th, 2014, ****** emailed ****** again with the details of the overnight graphing from the night before (the night of the 16th), 
which showed that from around 8:30pm on the 16th to around 3:00am on the 17th their connection was saturated/maxed out. Based on that finding, 
****** suggested that they increase their bandwidth, and detailed the bandwidth and price increases for the next step up that Western Broadband 

Then on December 19th, 2014, our Network Administrator ****** notated a call with ******, wherein she was upset about the phone call with 
***** on December 15th, and suggested that a higher bandwidth plan that might better meet their needs was too expensive. ****** apologized to her 
for the upsetting customer service experience, and suggested she may be able to configure their router’s QoS setting – settings which prioritize 
certain kinds of traffic over other, less-important types of traffic – and ****** notated that ****** seemed happy to have a suggestion which did 
would not cost her anything, and that ****** intended to look into the possibility of changing those settings. 

That was the last time we had any communication from ****** or ****** regarding service issues until February 4th, when we received 
notification that ****** had posted several identical comments to the blog on our website, which were nearly identical to the complaint she 
submitted to the BBB. We called ****** but were unable to reach her, and instead ****** emailed ******, including two of the most recent usage 
graphs showing there have been no service interruptions, just very high usage much of the time, including high upload usage, which can make the 
connection difficult to use for other processes. He also explained that we have looked at every link in the chain of their connection to see if there is 
anything else which could explain her poor experiences, and that in response to finding one possible issue, we installed some new equipment at one 
of our communication towers, and even re-routed a pathway in an attempt to resolve the issue for her. 

We have worked with ****** and ****** in attempts to resolve their service issues as quickly and professionally as possible, and we have made 
what we believe to be extraordinary attempts to resolve the issues they’re experiencing, despite that the issue seems to be on their personal 
network. It appears that there are several major misunderstandings resulting in ******’s ongoing frustration, which are unfortunately out of our 
control, including: unrealistic expectations about the way wireless broadband service works, unrealistic expectations about how much bandwidth is 
needed to handle all the traffic that devices on their personal network are attempting send and receive, possible ignorance of just how many devices 
in their home are connected to their personal network and how much bandwidth those devices utilize, unrealistic expectations about and 
comparisons of our pricing structure to that of multi-national corporations offering a different type of internet service than that which Western 
Broadband offers and who do not offer service in ******’s area, and unrealistic expectations about the level of technical support Western 
Broadband is able to offer on equipment that is not owned, manufactured or installed by Western Broadband. 

We take customer satisfaction very seriously and we’re very sorry for the frustrations that ****** has faced, however much those issues are out of 
our hands. We would very much like to offer ****** her desired resolution of internet service that works to her standards. To that end, we suggest 
that ****** consider removing other devices from their personal network, and if they still desire greater bandwidth than 2Mbps, we do offer higher 
bandwidth plans, at a higher monthly price. If those options are not acceptable to ****** or do not satisfactorily address their expectations, we will 
allow them to break their contractual agreement early, and we will waive the normal Early Termination Fee of $200.00 (however, the remaining 5 
loan installments for their deferred installation fee, totaling $54.15, would be due immediately).  

###-###-#### ex ****