T-Mobile wins accolades from J.D. Power again

"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrng2kv8d.6n.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...

>> "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.

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?
>
> 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.

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!

On 2008-05-14, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> 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.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

On 2008-05-14, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> On 2008-05-14, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.

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

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrng2mbfg.hoi.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .

>> 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.

I'd have thought the same, but who launched unlimited for $99 first? ;-)

At 13 May 2008 18:25:03 -0500 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...

>>> 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.

"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:MP6Xj.3479$7k7.1694@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> 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.

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.

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
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?

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-05-14, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> 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.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:z%6Xj.202$qQ5.79@fe091.usenetserver.com
> "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MP6Xj.3479$7k7.1694@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.