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

At 17 May 2008 06:53:21 -0700 SMS wrote:

> 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).


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
> 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).


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...>

Todd Allcock wrote:

>> 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.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:34:14 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

>At 16 May 2008 23:51:35 -0500 M.L. wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
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 **

At 16 Jun 2008 10:15:16 -0400 Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> 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.

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! ;-)

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 16 Jun 2008 10:15:16 -0400 Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> 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.

> 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.