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

On May 10, 8:32 pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 10 May 2008 13:08:09 +0000 Meg wrote:
>
> > 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.

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!

"Joe Seattle" <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1417c60d-f4aa-430f-a96b-f437cdee72f1@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 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!

"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...

Todd Allcock wrote:
> 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.

At 14 May 2008 19:41:29 -0500 DTC wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> > 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!

>>> 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.