Despite the growing use of machine learning (ML) for analyzing service quality and customer satisfaction, empirical studies based on Brazilian broadband telecommunications data remain scarce. This is especially true for those who leverage publicly available nationwide datasets. To address this gap, this study investigates customer satisfaction with broadband internet services in Brazil using supervised ML and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques applied to survey data collected by ANATEL between 2017 and 2020. Customer satisfaction was operationalized using the Net Promoter Score (NPS) reference scale, and three modifications in the scale were evaluated: (i) a binary model grouping ratings ≥ 8 as satisfied and ≤7 as dissatisfied (portion of the neutrals as satisfied and another as dissatisfied); (ii) a binary model excluding neutral responses (ratings 7–8) and retaining only detractors (≤6) and promoters (≥9); and (iii) a multiclass model following the original NPS categories (detractors, neutrals, and promoters). Nine ML classifiers were trained and validated on tabular data for each formulation. Model interpretability was addressed through SHAP and feature importance analysis using tree-based models. The results indicate that Histogram Gradient Boosting and Random Forest achieve the most robust and stable performance, particularly in binary classification scenarios. The analysis of neutral customers reveals classification ambiguity, showing scores of “7” tend toward dissatisfaction, while scores of “8” tend toward satisfaction. XAI analyses consistently identify browsing speed, billing accuracy, fulfillment of advertised service conditions, and connection stability as the most influential predictors of satisfaction. By combining predictive performance with model transparency, this study provides computational evidence for explainable satisfaction modeling and highlights the value of public regulatory datasets for reproducible ML research.
Elero et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: