 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / June 2008T-Mobile wins accolades from J.D. Power again
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9939851-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt OK, now it really is getting boring. T-Mobile announced today that it won yet another title from J.D. Power and Associates. This time the carrier took top honors in a survey of wireless retail sales satisfaction by hitting top marks in the four considered categories: sales staff, store display, store facility, and price/promotion. But T-Mobile wasn't alone at the top. Alltel trailed by two points to take second place while Verizon Wireless came in third. AT&T was rated as average and Sprint Nextel came in last with a below average rating in all four categories. This is not the first time T-Mobile has won accolades from J.D. Power. Earlier this year the carrier held the number one ranking in a customer service satisfaction survey. That's the seventh consecutive time T-Mobile won that prize. As I've said before, T-Mobile must be doing something right. So what's your story with T-Mobile? Is the carrier as hot as J.D. Power thinks? I welcome your comments and experiences. You get bonus points if you're T-Mobile's 30 millionth customer. The carrier announced it had reached that milestone yesterday. And considering T-Mobile launched its 3G network on Monday, it's been a big week. Congratulations to T-Mobile. > http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9939851-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > reached that milestone yesterday. And considering T-Mobile launched its 3G > network on Monday, it's been a big week. Congratulations to T-Mobile. I've dealt with T-Mobile a lot recently, having bought two prepaid phones from them. Indeed my sales satisfaction tops the other carriers I've dealt with (other than in the early days of the old AT&T Wireless). I particularly am impressed that their retail store sales people will check coveage at your house, without being asked, when you go in to sign up for service, and then will discourage you from signing on with them if their is no coverage where you live. The problem with T-Mobile is not their sales organization, it's their network. I bought the prepaid phones from them because I needed some inexpensive, unlocked, quad-band, bluetooth, GSM phones to use with foreign prepaid SIM cards. T-Mobile coverage is generally very poor out west. I live in a very urban part of Silicon Valley, and T-Mobile has almost no coverage. It's not their fault. They have the less desirable 1900 MHz spectrum which requires a lot more cell sites to achieve the same coverage as the 800 MHz carriers. They've been trying to get permission to install more cell sites for years, but have been stymid by NIMBY types. Regardless of the reasons for their coverage issues, they are often unusable out here, suffering from excessive dropped calls in their dead spots, or the inability to initiate or receive a call at all. That's why they have such high churn, despite their good prices, and good sales satisfaction. > The problem with T-Mobile is not their sales organization, it's their > network... > Regardless of the reasons for their coverage issues, they are often > unusable out here, suffering from excessive dropped calls in their > dead spots, or the inability to initiate or receive a call at all. That's > why they have such high churn, despite their good prices, and good sales > satisfaction. Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence? T-Mo's rural coverage is lacking (comparitively), but in my 6+ years with them I find their urban/suburban coverage (even in the Bay Area) ranges from adequate to excellent, depending on market. My opinion (note the use of the word "opinion") as to their churn is simply due to their demographic: value-oriented (including poor-credit!) customers and young people (including a lot of teens and very young adults), neither of whom have the "staying power" of business customers or an older demographic who tend to stick with a service if it works well for them. Younger folks are far more likely to be distracted by shiny objects and flit to a service that has the "hottest new gadget," at least in my opinion (and experience as a former cellular dealer of a decade.) T-Mo's increased relianced on pre-paid and no-contract monthly plans (Flex- Pay) also sets them up for higher churn (although their post-paid-only churn numbers, admittedly, are still higher than AT&T or Verizon's.) The historical lack of T-Mo coverage at your house and neighborhood should not be extrapolated as "evidence" that it's the major cause of churn for a national carrier. (And, frankly, I thought we put the 1900MHz issue to rest. ;-) Seemingly it's only a disadvantage when it's not Verizon, at least according to Consumer Reports, who's survey ranked Verizon's performance in their 1900MHz-only cities as good or better than any other carrier there, including the 800MHz carriers. CR's survey tends to indicate that coverage is influenced more by the carrier's deployment rather than the technology used.) * Todd Allcock wrote, On 5/10/2008 20:41: >> The problem with T-Mobile is not their sales organization, it's their >> network... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them I find their urban/suburban coverage (even in the Bay Area) ranges > from adequate to excellent, depending on market. Are you speaking of the San Francisco Bay Area? If so, I don't know where you live or travel, but obviously it's not Marin Country where they poop out just past the center of Fairfax and then nothing out to the coast. And I haven't found them at the coast traveling 10 miles north or south from Sir Francis Drake. The only reason I'm using them at the moment is that my contract with ATT expired a year ago and after going through the number game found that with my limited number of calls I was paying 20¢/min. Now with a PPD card with TMO it's half that. But they don't allow internet with the PPD card and I switch to their PPD card that does allow it, then I lose every penny remaining on the old card. Not great policy makers! Might as well switch to ATT PPD card with internet and have full coverage. Miles > My opinion (note the use of the word "opinion") as to their churn is simply > due to their demographic: value-oriented (including poor-credit!) customers [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > is influenced more by the carrier's deployment rather than the technology > used.) > Are you speaking of the San Francisco Bay Area? If so, I don't know > where you live or travel, but obviously it's not Marin Country where > they poop out just past the center of Fairfax and then nothing out to > the coast. And I haven't found them at the coast traveling 10 miles > north or south from Sir Francis Drake. Unfortunately, the areas you're talking about, central and western Marin (and then up the coast), had a great deal of AMPS coverage that has presumably gone away, so the PagePlus and Verizon coverage will have suffered, but it's still good except in the really unpopulated areas. I was out in an area of Marin last weekend (Marin Headlands) where I used to always have great AMPS coverage, but no more. I could get one bar of Verizon outside, and there was no AT&T or T-Mobile coverage (Sprint had coverage roaming onto Verizon). Actually if I went a mile out to the beach from where we were staying, the coverage improved on all carriers, the problem was I was in a valley surrounded on three sides by high hills, one one side by open ocean. > The only reason I'm using them at the moment is that my contract with > ATT expired a year ago and after going through the number game found > that with my limited number of calls I was paying 20¢/min. Now with a > PPD card with TMO it's half that. Of course I can't resist saying that with PagePlus you could get those minutes at 5.3¢, and have coverage as good or better as you had before. Greetings.. Something to consider regarding prepaid from any carrier.. Does the carrier ding you $1(once) for *each* day you use the phone plus your minutes. If so, you'll be surprised how fast you use up your money on such a plan. At last check (it may have changed in recent months) T-Mobile doesn't do this. It's strictly on a per minute usage rate. Meaning you don't get dinged with that $1/day surcharge. There may be other carriers doing this now days - not sure.. Cheers, Mr. Mentor |* Todd Allcock wrote, On 5/10/2008 20:41: | > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] | > is influenced more by the carrier's deployment rather than the technology | > used.) >> The problem with T-Mobile is not their sales organization, it's their >> network... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is > your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence? No, but if it makes you happy, we can say that it's _one_ of the reasons for their high churn. Some of the J.D. Power studies are intentionally misleading consumers, and the one quoted was one of them. There are similar studies where some of the worst quality vehicles win accolades for "sales satisfaction" or "initial quality" but the reality is that they're unreliable vehicles despite a pleasant buying experience, and do poorly in meaningful studies such as long term dependability, or depreciation. > T-Mo's rural coverage is lacking (comparitively), but in my 6+ years with > them I find their urban/suburban coverage (even in the Bay Area) ranges > from adequate to excellent, depending on market. I find them excellent when I have coverage, and inadequate where there is no coverage. > (And, frankly, I thought we put the 1900MHz issue to rest. I don't know where you got that idea. Even the Sprint and T-Mobile people that show up at planning commission and city council meetings asking for approval for towers admit that this is an issue, though they never use "1900 MHz" in their lobbying. They are invariably questioned as to why Cingular and Verizon are able to provide coverage to these areas without the need for towers in these residential neighborhoods, and have to explain about the 'different cellular technology' they use that requires more sites. You can't look at a couple of areas where 1900 works perfectly well, and extrapolate from that that there is no issue (or apparently you can). ;-) Seemingly > it's only a disadvantage when it's not Verizon, at least according to > Consumer Reports, who's survey ranked Verizon's performance in their > 1900MHz-only cities as good or better than any other carrier there, > including the 800MHz carriers. CR's survey tends to indicate that coverage > is influenced more by the carrier's deployment rather than the technology > used.) > > Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is > > your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence? > > No, but if it makes you happy, we can say that it's _one_ of the reasons > for their high churn. Then I have to play the "Navas card": cite, please? Point to ANY evidence coverage is a leading cause of their churn. While T-Mo's coverage is not as complete as their competitors, it's improved greatly in the last two-to- three years (partially via roaming agreements,) yet their churn has been fairly stable. Purely statistical evidence would indicate another cause. (Just as Sprint's sudden spike in churn can't be due to their coverage- it hasn't suddenly deteriorated, yet their churn is escalating.) > Some of the J.D. Power studies are intentionally misleading consumers, > and the one quoted was one of them. No, but the OP may certainly have misstated them. The J.D. Power's survey described here was a CUSTOMER SERVICE survey, period, ranking consumer's experiences with the CS department of the carrier- no more, no less. How is that "misleading?" > There are similar studies where > some of the worst quality vehicles win accolades for "sales satisfaction" > or "initial quality" but the reality is that they're unreliable vehicles > despite a pleasant buying experience... Which would be misleading if it was a vehicle reliabilty survey. One can't read more into a study than the data it presents. Again, J.D. Power's survey described here was a customer service satisfaction survey, period. > > T-Mo's rural coverage is lacking (comparitively), but in my 6+ years with > > them I find their urban/suburban coverage (even in the Bay Area) ranges > > from adequate to excellent, depending on market. > > I find them excellent when I have coverage, and inadequate where there is no coverage. Funny. "Adequate" to me means it works almost anywhere I go- I've been in metro/suburban areas (like the Bay Area) where occasionally stretches of highway had gaps. Loss of coverage for a quarter-mile stretch on a scenic highway is "adequate" IMO. I could have more complete coverage with Verizon, but of course my $72 family plan (1000 minutes, with unlimited data on two PDA phones) would jump to $130. Sorry- seamless coverage on the PCH on my one trip out west every year or two isn't worth an extra $700/year. > > (And, frankly, I thought we put the 1900MHz issue to rest. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1900 works perfectly well, and extrapolate from that that there is no > issue (or apparently you can). But you can look at one area- yours- and extrapolate that 1900 is a serious disadvantage nationwide? I simply said it's a factor that a typical metro/suburban build-out doesn't usually have to be concerned with, since capacty issues already require a denser build-out than coverage alone requires. Just because you live in a fairly atypical NIMBY zone doesn't mean everyone does. I couldn't tell you where the cell towers serving my neighborhood are- apparently they're fairly inconspicuous enough. 1900 requires a little more engineering than lower frequencies, but not to the point that it makes the higher frequencies or the carriers using them undesirable for that reason alone. Apparently Verizon designs a good network, according to your oft-quoted survey, even in their 1900-only areas, so the frequency alone doesn't seem to be an issue IF the carrier compensates properly for it. Somehow, I suspect that if you moved to Miami, you wouldn't jump ship to AT&T simply because they were the local 800MHz carrier, but would still be banging the Verizon drum. >>> Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is >>> your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then I have to play the "Navas card": cite, please? Point to ANY evidence > coverage is a leading cause of their churn. "http://tinyurl.com/5mprh8" among many others. But no, I can't prove that T-Mobile's reasons for churn are not different than the research indicates for carriers in general. In fact, if they did a study that broke down reasons for churn by carrier I'd expect T-Mobile to have a higher percentage of customers that left due to coverage issues than with the other carriers. Think about why everyone doesn't switch to T-Mobile? It's not handset selection (other than perhaps the lack of the iPhone without unlocking). It could be the lack of 3G, but relatively few subscribers are using 3G anyway. It's not cost, as they offer the lowest cost price/minute. It's not the customer service, which by all accounts is the best in the industry. The same reason people don't go to T-Mobile in the first place, is the reason they leave. It's the network. Yes, they are trying to improve it, but they aren't spending like crazy to achieve a marginal increase in coverage. They're content in their niche. >>>> Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is >>>> your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "http://tinyurl.com/5mprh8" among many others. More recent studies show price is gaining on coverage to where they're almost at parity when choosing a carrier (while not a "churn" study per se, it follows logically that someone churns from one carrier to land at another for the reason that they churned...) http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2145 > But no, I can't prove that T-Mobile's reasons for churn are not different > than the research indicates for carriers in general. In fact, if they did > a study that broke down reasons for churn by carrier I'd expect T-Mobile > to have a higher percentage of customers that left due to coverage issues > than with the other carriers. Perhaps, but again, coverage doesn't seem to be Sprint's problem currently. > Think about why everyone doesn't switch to T-Mobile? It's not handset > selection (other than perhaps the lack of the iPhone without unlocking). Selection certainly could be one factor- their selection is piss poor, unless you want one of there seeming endless "limited edition" Sidekicks, the quasi-PDa for the slacker generation. High-end handset selection is one of the worst. > It could be the lack of 3G, but relatively few subscribers are using 3G > anyway. They do and they don't, whether they realize it or not- the data services that most carriers offer and T-Mo doesn't are made possible by 3G or other mobile network features T-Mobile lacks- mobile TV, music download services, navigation services (GPS and locator), etc. T-Mo is the blandest, most featureless, service out there. T-Mo is essentially a low-end talk/text service. > It's not cost, as they offer the lowest cost price/minute. Yes, but unfortunately, that's not the sole factor in pricing. They have the smallest network, rendering mobile-to-mobile all but worthless- I personally know far more Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon customers than T-Mo customers, (not surprising, statistically speaking, of course!) so T-Mo is the least likely to attract customers looking for free calls to their friends and family (hence their "myFaves" plans to try and overcome that limitation.) More importantly, ARPU numbers for all carriers suggest that most carriers stick with low-end calling plans (when most carrier's ARPU is $50, and $10 of THAT is data, what does that leave for the voice plan?) If you can get by with Verizon's or AT&T's 450 minutes plus "free" minutes (M2M, N&W, etc.) for $40, as most customers seem to manage, T-Mobile's extra 200 or 300 minutes on most plans offer no real attraction. > It's not the customer service, which by all accounts is the best in the > industry. Only a factor if you need it! ;-) > The same reason people don't go to T-Mobile in the first place, is the > reason they leave. It's the network. Yes, they are trying to improve it, > but they aren't spending like crazy to achieve a marginal increase in > coverage. They're content in their niche. "Niche" somehow assumes T-Mo is far behind the other carriers- 30 million customers is no small feat, considering that they're the only carrier (besides Verizon) whose large customer base wasn't created overnight by nature of a relatively recent large acquision. Where would 70-million-strong AT&T rank if they were still Cingular and ATTWS? Perhaps at 40 and 30 million respectively? 45/25? Where would Sprint be (besides MUCH better off financially!) if Sprint and Nextel were still seperate companies? T-Mo would probably be a "middle of the pack" wireless company in a field of six, rather than the bottom of a field of four. I'm certainly not suggesting coverage has nothing to do with their churn- I've acknowledged many times they have the smallest footprint of any national carrier. But as you've said yourself- they go out of their way to discourage signing up customers that have lousy coverage where they live or work (the two places most of us spend the vast majority of their time.) Given that a significant number of potentially coverage-challenged customers never get on the network in the first place, it would seem logical that the lion's share of their churn issues are elsewhere. >> Think about why everyone doesn't switch to T-Mobile? It's not handset >> selection (other than perhaps the lack of the iPhone without [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sidekicks, the quasi-PDa for the slacker generation. High-end > handset selection is one of the worst. Most unlockable AT&T phones are available to T-Mobile users. > > Selection certainly could be one factor- their selection is piss poor, > > unless you want one of there seeming endless "limited edition" > > Sidekicks, the quasi-PDa for the slacker generation. High-end > > handset selection is one of the worst. > > Most unlockable AT&T phones are available to T-Mobile users. True, but that'd be hard for T-Mo to market wouldn't it? "Buy your phone at AT&T for full price, then come to us for service! For a limited time, we'll pay the unlocking fee!" I wouldn't hold my breath... >>> Selection certainly could be one factor- their selection is piss >>> poor, unless you want one of there seeming endless "limited edition" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I wouldn't hold my breath... T-mobile doesn't have to sell that feature at all. Many T-mobile users, including myself, purchased an AT&T phone to use with T-mobile service. >>> Most unlockable AT&T phones are available to T-Mobile users. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > T-mobile doesn't have to sell that feature at all. Many T-mobile users, > including myself, purchased an AT&T phone to use with T-mobile service. Define "many"? Most cellular customers choose from the handsets in the glass case at the cellphone store/kiosk. Generally those that shop for unlocked (or unlockable) handsets elsewhere are certainly a tiny minority. Mostly because it makes little financial sense- why spend, say, $500 on an AT&T Tilt to bring to T-Mo, when you could pay $200 for it with contract and just use AT&T? While T-Mo is a bit cheaper than AT&T, you'll "burn" that difference easily overpaying for the handset. I, too, have bought unlocked handsets to use on T-Mobile, but generally just to avoid renewing a contract because I was waiting for an upcoming, but yet unreleased, subsidized handset to show up. >>>> Most unlockable AT&T phones are available to T-Mobile users. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > shop for unlocked (or unlockable) handsets elsewhere are certainly a > tiny minority. The number of unlocked AT&T phones for sale on ebay will give you some idea of the popularity, in addition to the number of cellphone unlocking businesses on the Internet and ebay. > Mostly because it makes little financial sense- why > spend, say, $500 on an AT&T Tilt to bring to T-Mo, when you could pay > $200 for it with contract and just use AT&T? While T-Mo is a bit > cheaper than AT&T, you'll "burn" that difference easily overpaying > for the handset. Much of the unlocking business is for used cellphones, and for those wanting to avoid getting a phone with a contract.. > I, too, have bought unlocked handsets to use on T-Mobile, but > generally just to avoid renewing a contract because I was waiting for > an upcoming, but yet unreleased, subsidized handset to show up. > The number of unlocked AT&T phones for sale on ebay will give you some > idea of the popularity, in addition to the number of cellphone unlocking > businesses on the Internet and ebay. I'm not arguing about that- individual users are allowed plenty of flexibility as to handset selection on AT&T and T-Mobile, as opposed to the restrictive practices of Verizon and Sprint. The discussion was really about churn and the reasons for it, or why customers choose particular carriers over others, and I was making the case that lack of good high-end handsets, and the features they offer, was one of the reasons T-Mo is less popular than it is. Sure, I can buy an iPhone, or an unlocked Tilt or whatever from AT&T or an N95 and put it them T-Mo, but without 3G, video calling, mobile TV, etc., it's not really that advantageous to me to bother. For example, I have a T-Mo MDA (HTC Wizard) now- what would, say, an 8525 or a Tilt get me that I don't already have, when T-Mo doesn't offer compatible 3G? > Much of the unlocking business is for used cellphones, and for those > wanting to avoid getting a phone with a contract.. Until recently (Flexpay) a no-contract plan with T-Mo wasn't an option for new customers- you could bring your shiny new N95 to them and they'd still demand a 1-year contract. You poibt, however, is certainly valid with respect to upgrades- unlocked/used phones can avoid a renewal if you're replacing a broken or featureless phone. > Sure, I can buy > an iPhone, or an unlocked Tilt or whatever from AT&T or an N95 and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get me that I don't already have, when T-Mo doesn't offer compatible > 3G? In general, the unlocking community buys AT&T phones that can be flashed into compatibility with T-mobile so that no features are lost in the trade. > In general, the unlocking community buys AT&T phones that can be flashed into compatibility with T-mobile so that no features are lost in the trade. T-Mobile USA's 3G, that just launched last week, is on a frequency previously unused by any cellular company in the world (1700MHz). You can unlock, reprogram, flash, or even puree any current AT&T phone all you like and it won't work on T-Mo 3G. >> In general, the unlocking community buys AT&T phones that can be >> flashed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like > and it won't work on T-Mo 3G. Indeed, so the unlocking community won't be buying AT&T phones for their 3G feature. >> In general, the unlocking community buys AT&T phones that can be flashed >into compatibility with T-mobile so that no features are lost in the trade. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >unlock, reprogram, flash, or even puree any current AT&T phone all you like >and it won't work on T-Mo 3G. And let's not forget too that relatively few phone manufacturers have thus far announced firm plans and/or ship dates for devices that support this new frequency range. Thus, I think most people will be holding off on 3G for a while, both because of phone lineup and obviously because of the fact that it will be quite some time before it's nationwide. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > > You can > > unlock, reprogram, flash, or even puree any current AT&T phone all you like > > and it won't work on T-Mo 3G. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > obviously because of the fact that it will be quite some time before > it's nationwide. Why not- we've waited THREE YEARS for T-Mo to offer 3G- what's another year or two, right? Personally, I suspect Apes will rise up and take over the planet before I see 3G from T-Mo! ;-) >>> You can >>> unlock, reprogram, flash, or even puree any current AT&T phone all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> obviously because of the fact that it will be quite some time before >> it's nationwide. > Why not- we've waited THREE YEARS for T-Mo to offer 3G- what's > another year or two, right? Personally, I suspect Apes will rise up > and take over the planet before I see 3G from T-Mo! ;-) Thats already happened, look at W, stupid. >>>> Selection certainly could be one factor- their selection is piss >>>> poor, unless you want one of there seeming endless "limited [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > users, including myself, purchased an AT&T phone to use with T-mobile > service. Same here, I buy my phones overseas usually and just pop in my TMo SIM. The whole concept of buying a phone from the carrier is really quite odd and pretty much limited to the USA & Canada. I don't buy lamps, bulbs and appliances from the electric company or my BBQ or water heater from the gas company, I don't buy plumbing fixtures from the water company, I don't buy TV's from the cable company or even phones from the phone company (since the Carterphone decision of 40 years ago anyway) so why would one buy a mobile phone from a mobile operator? > Same here, I buy my phones overseas usually and just pop in my TMo SIM. > The whole concept of buying a phone from the carrier is really quite odd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > company (since the Carterphone decision of 40 years ago anyway) so why > would one buy a mobile phone from a mobile operator? Because they're heavily discounted. If the gas company offered me a water heater for $1 I'd buy it from them instead of a home improvement store. > ... so why would one buy a mobile phone from a mobile operator? In return for a 1 or 2 year contract obligation, the providers offer discounts on the hardware. My Verizon contract expires today, and I just received an email from them offering me deals on all sorts of nifty phones, all requiring contract extensions.  SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com >>>>> Selection certainly could be one factor- their selection is piss >>>>> poor, unless you want one of there seeming endless "limited [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The whole concept of buying a phone from the carrier is really quite odd > and pretty much limited to the USA & Canada. It is hardly limited to the USA and Canada, it is also common in countries in Europe and Asia I'm familiar with. The carrier will sell you a discounted, branded phone in return for you signing a contract. The discounts are often much deeper than in the US in fact. In the UK they'll give you very high end phones for free in return for signing a sufficiently high priced contract (there are people who have never paid for a phone) since there is no such thing as an Early Termination Fee there and contracts commit you to pay for the full term. It is the case that in most of those countries it is much easier than in the US to find a store selling unbranded phones, but buying discounted phones from the carrier is still popular. > company (since the Carterphone decision of 40 years ago anyway) so why > would one buy a mobile phone from a mobile operator? Because the operator will sell it to you cheap? That's the exact opposite of the situation after Carterphone when it was the equipment from third parties that was cheap. Dennis Ferguson > M.L. wrote >>>>> Selection certainly could be one factor- their selection is piss >>>>> poor, unless you want one of there seeming endless "limited >>>>> edition" Sidekicks, the quasi-PDa for the slacker generation. >>>>> High-end handset selection is one of the worst. >>>> Most unlockable AT&T phones are available to T-Mobile users. >>> True, but that'd be hard for T-Mo to market wouldn't it? "Buy your phone at AT&T for full price, then come to us >>> for service! For a limited time, we'll pay the unlocking fee!" >>> I wouldn't hold my breath... >> T-mobile doesn't have to sell that feature at all. Many T-mobile users, including myself, purchased an AT&T phone to >> use with T-mobile service. > Same here, I buy my phones overseas usually and just pop in my TMo SIM. The whole concept of buying a phone from the > carrier is really quite odd Nope, not if the deal is good value. > and pretty much limited to the USA & Canada. Completely wrong. > I don't buy lamps, bulbs and appliances from the electric company or my BBQ or water heater from the gas company, I > don't buy plumbing fixtures from the water company, I don't buy TV's from the cable company or even phones from the > phone company (since the Carterphone decision of 40 years ago anyway) You didnt buy the phone, you rented it. > so why would one buy a mobile phone from a mobile operator? Because it can be good value. >>>> Can we at least agree that your above stated reason for their churn is >>>> your _opinion_ rather than any independently documented evidence? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "http://tinyurl.com/5mprh8" among many others. You're kidding, right? That page is an illustration of a textbook example which begins, on the previous page, the the hypothetical "So, lets say for example, there is a customer who feels that the company is excellent at everything except for a poor job in coverage. [...] See figure 14.5". The chart not only has nothing to do with T-Mobile, it in fact has nothing to do with real life. It is a made-up example. > But no, I can't prove that T-Mobile's reasons for churn are not > different than the research indicates for carriers in general. In fact, By "research" what are you referring to? Not the line above this one, I hope. > if they did a study that broke down reasons for churn by carrier I'd > expect T-Mobile to have a higher percentage of customers that left due > to coverage issues than with the other carriers. > > Think about why everyone doesn't switch to T-Mobile? It's not handset Who says they're not? While the churn number is always interesting it isn't all that relevant to results and higher churn isn't always bad (that's a paraphrase from page 238 in your textbook reference). What counts to both the top and bottom lines are customer numbers and ARPU, or customer numbers times ARPU. T-Mobile has had the highest real (not-by-acquisition) growth rate of the biggest 5 wireless companies for quite a few years now, and while you might think their prices are lower their ARPU is still as high or higher than the bigger companies, which is good business if you can do it. If the kept that up forever they will have all the customers. You seem fixated on that churn number even though it is just about the least important and least meaningful measure of anything, while ignoring the numbers which are both much more important and much easier to understand. If everything else is good a high churn number may not be bad; it may even be that a high churn number is a necessary consequence of high growth, and high growth at a decent ARPU is an unqualified good. Dennis Ferguson >> "http://tinyurl.com/5mprh8" among many others. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > See figure 14.5". The chart not only has nothing to do with T-Mobile, > it in fact has nothing to do with real life. It is a made-up example. To be fair, I think Steven's point was that historically, coverage has been the leading cause of churn. Of course, given the large number of reasons one can churn, "leading" doesn't equate to "majority." You don't need a quorum to lead a field of eight or ten! >> Think about why everyone doesn't switch to T-Mobile? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a necessary consequence of high growth, and high growth at a decent > ARPU is an unqualified good. True, but "conventional wisdom" holds that churn is an important number in a market that is near or at saturation. In the current market where "everybody" seems to have a cell phone, growth is seen as coming primarily from pinching competitors' customers. However, that assumes, of course, that there is no "first time" subscriber growth left, which is untrue. As to stealing competitors' customers, well, that's what Sprint is for, right now! ;-) Kidding aside, churn is high among all carriers. Even Verizon's 1.x% still represents 1 in 8 customers jumping ship annually, so Steven's assertion that Verizon's churn number is "good" is only a relative measurment. The wireless customer base has little loyalty, so it only takes aggressive marketing to tilt the scales, and T-Mo has done that fairly well with their "myFaves" and Hotspots@Home (the latter being a product that Verizon and AT&T would be loathe to copy, since it targets the landline customer base that T-Mo has none to lose, unlike the big two.) I really think T-Mo has done VERY well with the residential market, but needs to sharpen their knives and go after the business market- 3G will help, but I think they really need to "think out of the box" and offer a no-roaming charge international plan, that eliminates roaming charges on other T-Mobile owned/operated networks. (Obviously they'd still charge roaming for use on other carriers!) The cost of such a plan to T-Mo would be minimal- I can't believe there is THAT much international roaming revenue out there that wouldn't be made up or exceeded by the monthly fees generated by such a plan. (Perhaps in the European market this might make less sense given the proximity of foreign countries, but even there it might work because the adoption rate of such a higher-monthly-fee plan where roaming is more common would be that much higher!) Like the original nationwide plans, perhaps international roaming agreements could even be struck to increase the scope beyond T-Mo networks eventually. This idea seems fanciful, perhaps, but a few months ago, who ever guessed we'd see unlimited usage plans from all national carriers so soon? The sooner T-Mo implemented something like this, the better, allowing them to "own" the international traveler market before Verizon eventually adopts LTE and does something similar with Voda! > help, but I think they really need to "think out of the box" and offer a > no-roaming charge international plan, that eliminates roaming charges on > other T-Mobile owned/operated networks [snip] > plans from all national carriers so soon? The sooner T-Mo implemented > something like this, the better, allowing them to "own" the international > traveler market before Verizon eventually adopts LTE and does something > similar with Voda! Ha. Verizon won't do anything like that, since they have never felt the need to compete on price. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >> help, but I think they really need to "think out of the box" and offer a >> no-roaming charge international plan, that eliminates roaming charges on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ha. Verizon won't do anything like that, since they have never felt the need to > compete on price. I don't know about that, they've done it in the past. I pay Verizon a $20/month premium over the price of an equivalent USA-only plan for inclusive calls to, and roaming in, Canada and Mexico, the most common destinations for the minority of Americans who actually travel internationally. Given that Mexican prepaid mobile plans tend to charge between 30 and 40 cents per minute for local calls (and $1/minute to the US unless you are lucky enough to be somewhere where they have tourist-special plans) it takes very little use there to cover the $20/month compared to the alternatives. In fact, since one of the two phones on my plan (not mine) is used extremely heavily in Mexico, that usage by itself has covered the entire cost of the $115/month plan since I've had it (I think 2008's charges were nearly covered by the 3300 minutes of use in Mexico in January alone). That I get to use the phone in the US as well is a bonus. Verizon stopped offering this plan after they divested themselves of IUSACEL and/or when changes to the way calls to Mexican mobiles are charged made it uneconomic. Out of all the US carriers, however, Verizon kind of stands out for having been willing to try to leverage their international holdings to attract higher-revenue business like this, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did it again. Dennis Ferguson >> The sooner T-Mo implemented >> something like this, the better, allowing them to "own" the international [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need to > compete on price. I'd have thought the same, but who launched unlimited for $99 first? ;-) ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > I'd have thought the same, but who launched unlimited for $99 first? ;-) Verizon might have, but they all did it at about the same time anyhow. I suspect Verizon saw it coming and just positioned themselves that way to make them look more competitive. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > > I'd have thought the same, but who launched unlimited for $99 first? ;-) > Verizon might have, but they all did it at about the same time anyhow. Yes, but all in response to Verizon. They set the bar, and boy was _I_ surprized! ;-) >I > suspect Verizon saw it coming and just positioned themselves that way to > make them look more competitive. From what I read in the trades, they came up with it and blindsided everybody. > From what I read in the trades, they came up with it and blindsided > everybody. Hm. Could certainly have happened that way. Certainly surprised me! :) SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > Ha. Verizon won't do anything like that, since they have never felt the need to > compete on price. I don't know about that, they seem to be working actively to be the most expensive on the market. SignatureBarack Obama, May 9: "I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." > Ha. Verizon won't do anything like that, since they have never felt the need to > compete on price. Sure they do. They don't try to set the lowest price, but they can't charge more either. Look at "http://www.mobileburn.com/plans.jsp" and do some comparisons. $40 buys you 500 minutes on Alltel, 450 minutes on AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon (all with free MTM), and 600 minutes on T-Mobile (with no MTM). $60 buys you 900 minutes on Alltel, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon (all with free MTM), and 1500 minutes on T-Mobile (with no MTM). $80 buys you 1400 minutes on Alltel, 1350 minutes on AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon (all with free MTM), (T-Mobile has no plan at that price point). Only T-Mobile advertises a $30/month plan (though other carriers do have them apparently). Actually Verizon ends up being less than AT&T and Sprint (not sure about Alltel) because their junk fees are much lower). They're probably being stupid in this approach because they don't advertise the lower junk fees. Few people check the junk fees when comparing prices. OTOH, you don't get stuff like rollover on Verizon. It goes beyond the price too. Look at free MTM. Verizon has, by far, the largest number of retail customers (customers that you can call with free MTM). While AT&T has more users of their network, giving them bragging rights of "largest carrier"), they have a lot of MVNO customers included, who don't qualify as in network (not sure if AT&T's own prepaid customers can be called as in-network by a post paid AT&T customer). If you're buying by price, and know about SERO, Sprint is the best deal, as long as you buy a handset that you can force to roam on Verizon. > Sure they do. They don't try to set the lowest price, but they can't > charge more either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > $40 buys you 500 minutes on Alltel, 450 minutes on AT&T, Sprint, and > Verizon (all with free MTM), and 600 minutes on T-Mobile (with no MTM). Here we go again... While the number of "peak" minutes is equivalent, other options vary wildly- unused AT&T minutes rollver, perhaps allowing the customer to use a lower plan- Sprint has earlier nights, Alltel allows one "circle" number- any number you define gets unlimited calling to/from. Add-ons like data and texting are often much higher from Verizon- although they've improved on this only recently. > It goes beyond the price too. Look at free MTM. Verizon has, by far, > the largest number of retail customers (customers that you can call [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as in network (not sure if AT&T's own prepaid customers can be called > as in-network by a post paid AT&T customer). Actually they can. MVNO customers are treated as AT&T customers for M2M. > If you're buying by price, and know about SERO, Sprint is the best deal, > as long as you buy a handset that you can force to roam on Verizon. If not you can still use Sprint's perfectly adequate network. <Insert anti- 1900MHz reply here...> >> If you're buying by price, and know about SERO, Sprint is the best deal, >> as long as you buy a handset that you can force to roam on Verizon. > > If not you can still use Sprint's perfectly adequate network. <Insert anti- > 1900MHz reply here...> Here we go again. 1900 MHz is a side issue that you seem to be obsessed with. Sprint (and T-Mobile) often _want_ to install more cells to mitigate the shorter range of 1900 MHz, but they are constantly being blocked by residents that don't want towers in their neighborhood. I.e. a failure for Sprint: "Following testimony from residents of Cupertino's Jollyman Park neighborhood, the city council unanimously denied an appeal from the Sprint PCS wireless company to build a wireless antenna in the community. Residents objected to its appearance and the proposed placement on a church tower." And a victory for T-Mobile: "T-Mobile has been given the go-ahead to erect a 32-foot wireless communications monopole on Bollinger Road. The commission denied T-Mobile's prior application to build a 35-foot tall wireless monopole at the same location in December 2005" (actually it wasn't the same location, T-Mobile moved the tower from a location directly behind some houses, over to the other side of a shopping center, away from the houses). What really makes it difficult for Sprint and T-Mobile is that when the hearings are held on granting permission for a tower, invariably residents will show up and state that their cell phone service is fine, and that they don't understand why Sprint or T-Mobile needs cells in the specific location when the other carriers manage without them. I'm sure there are area where Sprint's network is perfectly adequate. But it's adequate in a lot less places than Verizon's and AT&T's, because of their need for so many more towers to cover the same geographical area, and the NIMBY's that don't want to let them install them. It's not a problem that I invented, it's a very real issue in many areas. > The problem with T-Mobile is not their sales organization, it's their > network. Amen. > Alltel trailed by two points to take second place while Verizon > Wireless came in third. AT&T was rated as average and Sprint Nextel > came in last with a below average rating in all four categories. I wonder if the rating was like: T-mobile Alltel Verizon ....or more like: T-mobile Alltel Verizon ATT Sprint/Nextel (c; > So what's your story with T-Mobile? What's your story with this post? You didn't bother posting it in the generic cellular group (alt.cellular) or either T-Mobile group (the current alt.cellular.t-mobile or the mostly abandoned alt.gsm.carriers.voicestream)- only the Verizon group where it is likely to be construed as trolling. > Is the carrier as hot as J.D. Power > thinks? I welcome your comments and experiences. You get bonus points if > you're T-Mobile's 30 millionth customer. The carrier announced it had > reached that milestone yesterday. Then the "30 millionth customer" doesn't really have many experiences to share with us if he or she has only been with T-Mo for 24 HOURS, agreed? > And considering T-Mobile launched its 3G > network on Monday, it's been a big week. Congratulations to T-Mobile. Yep, congratulations! Dead last, by several years, in a field of four nationwide carriers to launch 3G, and on a non-standard frequency supported by exactly ONE handset they sell! A proud day indeed. Next year I hear they're launching touch-tone dialing! Kidding, and sarcasm, aside, as a six-plus year T-Mo customer, I find T- Mo's customer service to be excellent, indeed. It has to be, though, since all other aspects of the service (except price) are weaker than the competition- coverage, phone selection and lack of a nationwide high-speed data network. The price and the CS are all that keeps me around, and unless they offer some decent high-end PDA phones with their odd-ball 3G service PRONTO, I'll be testing the lousy-rated CS over at Sprint on a SERO plan by year's-end. > What's your story with this post? You didn't bother posting it in the > generic cellular group (alt.cellular) or either T-Mobile group (the > current alt.cellular.t-mobile or the mostly abandoned > alt.gsm.carriers.voicestream)- > only the Verizon group where it is likely to be construed as > trolling. He was trying to show it to the biggest disgruntled audience?...(c; >> What's your story with this post? You didn't bother posting it in the >> generic cellular group (alt.cellular) or either T-Mobile group (the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >He was trying to show it to the biggest disgruntled audience?...(c; Then it should have been posted to the Sprint group. > > So what's your story with T-Mobile? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > competition- coverage, phone selection and lack of a nationwide high-speed > data network. Considering that the number one and number two have a 12 year lead on VoiceStream/T-Mobile and considering that they [AT&T and Verizon] have the backing of their ILEC and considering that they are *the* national cellular (850 Mhz) carriers (there can be only two in a market) VS/T-Mobile has done very well for itself. If it weren't for the lousy marriage of Sprint and Nextel T-Mobile would now be the number three carrier in the US. As for 3G T-Mobile didn't have any choice on what spectrum they could bid on. It's the same for AT&T and Verizon. They couldn't use all the 3G frequencies that the rest of the world uses either since the spectrum was already in use and could not be easily re-organized. You can only use what you've got or what you've been relegated to! > Considering that the number one and number two have a 12 year lead on > VoiceStream/T-Mobile and considering that they [AT&T and Verizon] have > the backing of their ILEC and considering that they are *the* > national cellular (850 Mhz) carriers (there can be only two in a > market) VS/T-Mobile has done very well for itself. I don't disagree. I've been a happy T-Mo customer since the Voicestream days. I don't pretend, however, that T-Mo is perfect, or that they are right carrier for everybody. I like them- coverage is good enough, and they offer an excellent bang for the buck. There's nowhere else I could run a family plan with unlimited data on two smartphones for $70. > If it weren't for > the lousy marriage of Sprint and Nextel T-Mobile would now be the > number three carrier in the US. Perhaps- if not for the lousy marriage, I think Sprint would be doing much better than they are currently, and would likely still be ahead of T-Mo, but that's immaterial to me- I choose my wireless carrier based on my needs, not their ranking! ;-) > As for 3G T-Mobile didn't have any > choice on what spectrum they could bid on. It's the same for AT&T > and Verizon. They couldn't use all the 3G frequencies that the rest > of the world uses either since the spectrum was already in use and > could not be easily re-organized. You can only use what you've got or > what you've been relegated to! Agreed- that excuses the problem, perhaps, but doesn't improve T-Mo's position- the net result is that, for the time being, it'll force us to use T-Mo-branded 3G handsets- I can't, for example, buy an unlocked AT&T Tilt, and run it on T-Mo's 3G when it launches here in Denver, or for use in New York, where I'll be next month. Frankly, I'm not really desperate for the speed of 3G- I'd just like simultaneous use of voice and data, so my calls don't roll to voicemail when I'm retrieving e-mail! My post was really in response to the fact that the OP was trolling- this "great news" was posted to a Verizon group, but NOT to either T-Mo group! > Frankly, I'm not really desperate for the speed of 3G- I'd just like > simultaneous use of voice and data, so my calls don't roll to voicemail > when I'm retrieving e-mail! Very surprising to me, at times when I had my Sprint phone tethered to my laptop, it would ring on incoming calls and I could answer the call. > > Frankly, I'm not really desperate for the speed of 3G- I'd just like simultaneous use of voice and data, so my calls don't roll to voicemail when I'm retrieving e-mail! > Very surprising to me, at times when I had my Sprint phone tethered to > my laptop, it would ring on incoming calls and I could answer the call. It's a luck of the draw thing- calls will ring through when connected on GSM/EDGE if data isn't actively being transferred (like a web browsing session when you're reading rather than loading a page) but if data is actively being transferred (like a file download or synching e-mail with a server) T-Mo doesn't interrupt the transfer for whatever reason ("that's just the way it works" they say.) Ironically, if I fall back to 1G (9.6kbpsCSD!) the data call will be dropped when a call comes in. One month, as a test, I switched my e-mail settings to use CSD over adialup ISP to reduced missed calls, and ran up over 800 minutes of CSD use, so I switched back to unlimited GPRS! >OK, now it really is getting boring. T-Mobile announced today that it won >yet another title from J.D. Power and Associates. This time the carrier >took top honors in a survey of wireless retail sales satisfaction by >hitting top marks in the four considered categories: sales staff, store >display, store facility, and price/promotion. That's all very nice; have a cookie. Now, how did you say their coverage and call quality compared with Verizon??? Oh........ A_C >> OK, now it really is getting boring. T-Mobile announced today that it won >> yet another title from J.D. Power and Associates. This time the carrier [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Now, how did you say their coverage and call quality compared with > Verizon??? Sales satisfaction is all that matters. Coverage and quality are secondary considerations. Just like when buying a car, I always buy the model where the manufacturer rated highest in J.D. Power sales satisfaction, even when the vehicle is worse than others in safety, fuel economy, performance, and reliability. After all, that couple of hours in the dealership at purchasing time is what matters most. They can't give me a signal at work. Neither can Sprint or Verizon. I'm with AT&T because they are the only provider that can give me a signal at work. I switched from Sprint and got an unexpected bonus; the AT&T signal at home is full strength while it was only about 50% with Sprint.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.