T-Mobile US gobbles up another 2.2m customers For yet another quarter, "uncarrier" T‑Mobile US has shown that there is money to be made in giving customers what they want. Its revenue for Q1 2016 was up on the year-ago period to $8.6bn, beating analysts' expectations: Revenues: Up 10.6 per cent year-on-year to $8.6bn. Service revenues up 13 per cent year-on-year to $6. …
Just finished bitching at EE (T-Mob) about mystery 60p deduction from PAYG balance, allegedly for a call to voicemail that I have no knowledge of making.
EE's Twitter drone suggested calling Customer Service (cost 25p). Obviously more time and cost-effective to write off the 60p.
I won't forget this on the day I buy an unlocked phone -- when it's curtains for EE..
All they have to do to succeed handsomely is to watch what AT&T and Verizon do, then do the exact opposite instead.
I'm now a happy T-M customer & gleefully give Verizon The Finger with both hands, feet, tentacles, testicles, & all my noodley bits in derrision.
Verizon sucks so hard it makes BlackHoles jealous.
Been there and done that as well.
The only thing that I liked on Verizon was that the tower hand-off when traveling was generally seamless, and I often was able to maintain a call over the 30 mile route from work to home. (Using hands-free equipment, not driving like a raging idiot with my phone stuck to my ear and waving my other hand wildly...)
I saved a third of my bill when I switched to T-Mobile, but found that it was a bit bug ridden in the tower behavior.
With T-Mo or Sprint, I've noticed that there are a few repeat offending bad hand-off points, as well as places where the phone will stick on one tower even to the point of having no signal, even when not in a call. I confirmed with other Sprint users, and had it happen with T-Mo on my old phone, prior to switching to Fi.
Now I've switched to Google's Project Fi, and like it well enough, but it's main saving grace is the price point. Using T-Mo as well as Sprint, and trying it locked in either carrier's service or roaming between each, about the same, though T-Mo's data service is more reliable in general than Sprint's.
T-Mobile's growth strategy will work in the short term, but when former ATT customers like myself look past the marketing and realize that after the switch they get slower data speeds and poor (1-2 bars almost everywhere) reception consistency across the US in areas like SF Bay, LA, Ohio, and NYC, those same customers (me included) are going to make the walk of shame back.
I'll gladly deal with ATT and their less hip CEO in return for consistent, high quality data and cellular reception.
I'm only able to speak for my own experience, but my cellphone with Verizon never got more than two (2) bars while sitting at home, but then would jump to four or five once I got on the freeway. The moment I switched to T-M, I've got a different but still basic phone, & now I get four to five bars at home or full signal if I hit the freeway.
I'm in Modesto rather than SF or SJ, but given Verizon claims I'm "fully covered" yet can't deliver more than one to two bars in the *exact same space* that T-M gives me four or five, makes me all the happier to have switched.
My folks are currently with AT&T and they hate it. The only reason they haven't switched to T-M yet is because they can't afford the ETF raping that AT&T would give them. As soon as that contract is over though, they plan to switch so fast it'll make AT&T's knickers wedgie up over the AT&T CxO's head.
Is the AT&T service in the SF bay area *that* much better? I'd be honestly surprised that T-M doesn't drop kick AT&T in the bollocks at their own game. They've certainly given Verizon a thorough & shameful trouncing.
*Happily waves a tiny "Team T-M" flag & hoots "Yippee!" like a git*
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
