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

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?

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:
> 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?
>
> 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.

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
> 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:
> 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.)
>
>

Miles wrote:

> 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


"Miles" <mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:HmwVj.3276$nW2.2854@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
|* Todd Allcock wrote, On 5/10/2008 20:41:
| > 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?
| >
| > 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.
|
| 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
| > 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.)
| >
| >

At 11 May 2008 06:49:00 -0700 SMS wrote:

> > 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.
>
> 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).

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.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 May 2008 06:49:00 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>>> 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.

"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.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:SwjWj.971$l97.68@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Todd Allcock wrote:

>>>> 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.
>
> "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
>> 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.

Most unlockable AT&T phones are available to T-Mobile users.

On 2008-05-13, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 11 May 2008 06:49:00 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> "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