Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Scott County Telephone Cooperative's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Scott County Telephone Cooperative has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Scott County Telephone Cooperative

  149 Woodland St Gate City, VA 24251-3239

• 

  Scott County Telephone Cooperative

  121 Woodland Street Gate City, VA 24251

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/05/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  This outcome is unacceptable. The office provided you with the number of occasions that I was requesting help with the same issue and never getting offered the conduit. I did not approve for them to trespass onto my property without permission. In fact, in past calls I was told I had to be home to have work performed. All that it proves is how sneaky your office was trying to be by showing up when I was not there. I would also like the documentation of the people who offered me, the conduit and the person who stated that I refused it because it didn't match my house color. That is the most ridiculous response I have ever heard. My house is white, black and brick so please do tell me what color does not match with that? Why would I refuse the conduit when I'm trying to avoid having you guys come out all together. For these accusations, please provide the documentation in which I am refusing and signing something stating that I'm refusing for the conduit to be installed. As I said before, this issue should have been resolved on the first complaint and not taken so many complaints to get fixed resulting in your $75 fee for not providing a service that should have been provided in the first place. I am also putting your company on notice that no one under any circumstances is going to be on my property unless myself or my husband are there. 
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****the unfair and unethical charge. On top of this the worker left their black and red drill on my property that I dropped back off to the local office by going outside of my way and they continue to try and charge the fee.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/25/2025

  Good afternoon. This is Scott County Telephone Cooperative’s (SCTC) response to the complaint filed to the Better Business Bureau by ******* *****. Ms. ***** stated that SCTC drilled a hole in the bottom of her home to feed the wire down and her farm animals were able to get a hold of the wire. Drilling a hole in the bottom of her home is a common practice during the installation process. As far as the farm animals are concerned, SCTC never witnessed any farm animals that caused the problem. It was a dog that was chewing the cable. This happened on three different occasions. There was a trouble ticket (*****) created on 02/14/25. The technician replaced a fiber optic jumper cable which was chewed by a dog. The technician informed the customer that if this happened again that there would be a $75 charge. Another trouble ticket (*****) was created on 04/09/25. The technician replaced a fiber optic jumper cable that was chewed by a dog. Also, a third trouble ticket (*****) was created on 04/15/25. The technician replaced a fiber optic jumper cable which was chewed by a dog. As far as the trespassing accusation, Ms. ***** had called SCTC to report a trouble that her service was not working. A SCTC Technician was dispatched and had responded to get her services working again. That is the reason that a SCTC Technician was on her property. This is common practice. It was recommended that the fiber optic jumper cable be placed in a protective conduit. The customer did not want the conduit due to the fact that the conduit did not match the color of the siding on her house. Not sure how that Ms. ***** expects SCTC to keep repairing damages caused by her dog and not get charged. ***** ********Scott County Telephone Cooperative Executive Vice President Of Finance And OperationsVoice: ###-###-#### Fax:   ###-###-####Email: ****************** 

  Business Response

  Date: 07/07/2025

  Mrs. ***** stated that the office provided the number of occasions that the dog chewed the fiber optic jumper cable. Mrs. ***** could have been charged each time but was not. Only charged one time. SCTC is willing to credit the $75 trip charge. However, SCTC is requesting that Mrs. ***** allow SCTC to install the protective conduit during a time when either she or her husband is at home. Replacing the fiber optic jumper cable along with a truck roll is an expense that SCTC would prefer to not have if at all possible. As far as being sneaky, SCTC was only responding to a trouble call reported by Mrs. *****. SCTC had no way of knowing if Mrs. ***** or her husband was home or not. Hoping that is a reasonable resolution for Mrs. *****. Thanks, ***** ********Scott County Telephone Cooperative Executive Vice President Of Finance And Operations 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/08/2025

  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved*** ******* ** * ******* **** The cable was replaced and they also have my phone number for future reference.
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****