Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 10 May 2008 07:19:41 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> 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?

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.)
>
>