AT&T Repeats As Lowest-Rated Wireless Carrier

redletterdave writes "Consumer Reports' latest ratings survey of cell phone carriers revealed that Verizon Wireless scored the highest satisfaction score out of the four major U.S. service providers, earning particularly high grades for texting and data service. Verizon was followed closely by Sprint and T-Mobile USA, but all three companies earned scores lower overall than their figures from last year. AT&T was at the very bottom of the list for the second year in a row. While AT&T's satisfaction score in 2011 wasn't as bad as its score from 2010, the Dallas-based cell phone provider, which recently discontinued its bid to acquire its better rival T-Mobile, still ranked at the bottom of the pack. Last year, AT&T was the only carrier for the Apple iPhone, but still managed to receive the lowest scores."

Comments

AT&T Customer Service is a big reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get an AT&T e-mail address (ala MyName@att.net), "serviced by Yahoo", if you want to find out why AT&T services are so hated.

Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason

[mcgrew]

I don't think the "serviced by Yahoo" has to do with customer service, I think it has to do with web-based infrastructure (but I could be wrong).

It does seem that TFS is straight on, from my personal experience anyway. I had Cingular for years and was happy with them. AT&T bought them out and my bill skyrocketed, so I switched carriers.

When I went to see about internet connections when I moved, there was Comcast at $40 and AT&T for $20, even though it was a slower connection than Comcast. After talking with the AT&T guy on the phone, I opted for their "double speed" for an extra five bucks. Still slower than Comcast, but as I'm the only one living at my house, I don't do the fast internet games any more, and there are only two computers running at any one time, the speed was fine for me.

The latest bill came yesterday. All of a sudden it's $40. I'll be calling them this afternoon after I get my phone fixed/replaced to bitch about it, and will probably be going with Comcast after the contract is up.

DIE, AT&T, DIE!!!

Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason

[smpoole7]

If you read the fine print in your contract, you'll probably find that the $20 a month was an "introductory" offer. They're notorious for that -- and in fairness, they're by no means the only provider that does it.

-- Stephen

Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just try calling AT&T's phone support. I cancelled my service over the phone a year ago. They cancelled my telephone service immediately, but failed to cancel the DSL portion. Long story short, after SIX calls to them in 3 months, being told "wow, we're sorry. we'll take care of that asap!", I started getting nastygrams in the mail from them about an unpaid balance. After two more calls in a month, being told "Wow, we're REALLY sorry. We'll take care of that", I started getting letters from a collection agency. It took two more months of phone calls to both parties to get them to drop the balance due down to 9 dollars, for a months worth of service I didn't even get or want. This is a company that clearly doesn't give a shit about its customers, only money. After completely fucking the cat for SIX MONTHS, causing me to spend countless hours on hold and talking to limp dick customer service reps, admitting it was their fault the entire time, they still didn't have the decency to waive nine dollars. I had been a customer with them for over a decade, and this is how they treated me. Imagine how they're going to treat you?

That's AT&T!

[JoshWurzel]

No bars in more places...

Re:That's AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

No bars in more places...

With all those bars, you get drunk enough to not notice the lack of bars.

Re:That's AT&T!

[dmgxmichael]

I thought it was more bars in no places?

Re:That's AT&T!

[Chris Mattern]

Or maybe it's just that their service techs are in more bars.

Re:That's AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, if you're gona quote them. Quote it right!

More bars in more places. Our cellular tech's need them!

Re:That's AT&T!

[froggymana]

sent from my att ph

Famous quote

[jd2112]

"We're the Phone Company. We don't care, we don't have to" - Lily Tomlin

Re:Famous quote

[furbearntrout]

See Figure 1.[1],[2]

Re:Famous quote

[Lorien_the_first_one]

That is actually a very accurate interpretation of AT&T's slide. Their monopoly on the iPhone was a big part of their downfall. Relying upon a popular phone as a draw to customers decreased their incentive to provide good customer service.

Re:Famous quote

[Andy Dodd]

Yup, I'm fairly certain the iPhone is the reason for AT&T's epic failure to handle Android properly, and AT&T's complacence thanks to the iPhone is why Verizon made such an incredible about-face when it came to device availability - it used to be Verizon was the LAST carrier you wanted to be on if you wanted a decent smartphone (for example, 9 month delays for the Treo 650 and the XV6800 for "carrier certification issues" - translation: we haven't finished crippling the software yet.), but that completely changed with them embracing Android in 2010.

Re:Famous quote

[smpoole7]

As a communications engineer, I can attest that towers and transmitter buildings cost money. (Tower crews, just to name one expense, charge thousands of dollars per day now -- just relamping a 200-300' tower can cost well over a grand.) So ... the PHBs at all of the wireless providers are constantly faced with a terrible choice: do they spend the $$$$ to improve their coverage, or try to grab customers with bells and whistles?

There's a REASON why so many wireless ads started pushing fancy phones, built-in cameras and the ability to send movies to one another. They figure that if they can grab customers with features instead of actually investing in more capacity, they're ahead of the game.

The old saying, "first, kill all the lawyers" needs to be updated for the new millennium. I propose, "first, banish all PHBs to a remote island and force them to live with their own products as punishment."

Re:Famous quote

[NJRoadfan]

Verizon was traditionally very hands off when it came to meddling with many smartphone features. For example, they always had full bluetooth support. They still mess around with Android phones though. They put Bing in as the default search on all the non-Droid branded handsets and they preload a lot of their silly VCAST apps and other junk you can't delete.

Re:Famous quote

[NJRoadfan]

AT&T Wireless (the old "blue" network) has had long standing coverage issues in parts of Northern NJ that have been documented for well over 10 years. Some dead zones from the TDMA days still exist and haven't been addressed. Verizon Wireless also has its fair share of dead zones, but they have actively worked to fill in the coverage gaps based on personal experience. In many cases it they had to build a new tower site to fix the problem.

Re:Famous quote

[drinkypoo]

They figure that if they can grab customers with features instead of actually investing in more capacity, they're ahead of the game.

Too bad they didn't figure that those features require bandwidth to be more than a toy.

AT&T

[BriggsBU]

After working for AT&T, it is no surprise to me that they rate so lowly. Their employees often find their hands tied when they want to help a customer. They also have a 0-5 score that all accounts are given. This score is one of the first things an agent sees when the customer's account comes up. Customers whose accounts rate a 0 or 1 (either due to being on the cheapest plan or due to poor credit/payment history) find themselves treated like a red-headed step child. AT&T's policies actually state that any customer threatening to disconnect their service due to a dispute should be transferred to a senior representative UNLESS they are a 0 or a 1. 0's and 1's should instead be disconnected immediately and have their Early Termination Fee waived. Essentially, AT&T doesn't want them as customers and will drop them the instant they have an excuse.

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just said that. I think you just said that.

Re:AT&T

[arbiter1]

Wow that is pretty sad for a major company to treat its customers like that by giving them a number and treating based on how high it is.

Re:AT&T

[hedwards]

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. AT&T is significantly worse than Sprint. With Sprint their customer service sucked, but I'd get a signal in more parts of the city than with any of the other carriers. AT&T by contrast can't even cover the city. It's embarrassing to be in a major city and have to worry about cell service in most parts of the city.

I don't even bother with 3G anymore because the service was so spotty. For whatever reason going between 3G and EDGE would cause timeouts, and my service was constantly going between the two unless I was sitting still. Ultimately I get much better speed by turning off the 3G completely.

Now, if Sprint or Verizon would see the light and allow phones with SIM cards on their networks like CDMA carriers do in other countries I'd almost certainly switch. Most likely T-Mobile will be getting my service next time I need domestic cell service.

Re:AT&T

[geminidomino]

Now, if Sprint or Verizon would see the light and allow phones with SIM cards on their networks like CDMA carriers do in other countries I'd almost certainly switch. Most likely T-Mobile will be getting my service next time I need domestic cell service.

I came to the same conclusion now that Sprint's been screwing me multiple times. For four years, they were great. This year, not so much.

The only question is if T-mobile will be the same (or even extant) in July when my contract is up.

Re:AT&T

[sortius_nod]

And this is another reason I am happy to be Australian. We have very strong consumer protection laws that stop this kind of bullshit. Service providers are regularly audited, the TIO has the power to send cases to the regulator, and you still get the same service no matter if you're on the lowest plan or on the top plan.

By no means is our system perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the US.

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you answer? Is att evil or just incompetent?

As a former customer, I always got the idea that overcharges were an essential part of att's / cingular's business plan.

I had a couple different numbers with them (both as att and cingular), and they would always charge for things that were included in the plan. Typically $50-$150 in bogus charges per month. They would always remove them when called, but calling every month was a pita, and a huge factor in me changing carriers, and swearing never to go back to att.

Re:AT&T

[MBC1977]

Its called "firing a customer" and it makes perfect sense. If the customer is not profitable and cannot be made to become profitable, why keep them as a customer? Basic cost accounting there.

Re:AT&T

[MacTO]

Yeap. Some customers deserve the axe. The problem is when you give too many customers the axe: people interpret it as bad customer service either from direct experience or word of mouth. If enough people get that impression, it will be reflected in the company's ability to retain the good customers. So firing the customer doesn't really make sense unless it is a very exceptional case.

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

and have their Early Termination Fee waived

that actually sounds like a good way out/something that can be gamed. so if I want to skip the ETF I can just become a bad customer? hrm...

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that customer has friends, family, ect... And will tell them all how shit at&t is.

Which is how they end up with the lowest scores year after year.

The world is no longer isolated little cities spread across the planet. It's one global city now with the internet here. And treating people like shit for any reason WILL bite you in the ass.

But of course companies are slow to change and rarely have touch with the real world. So it'll be another two decades before at&t gets it. And hopefully by then they'll be gone. And nobody will care.

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... if you're dealing with a terrible company, become a terrible customer. Once I was in a contract that renewed automatically, if not canceled within 60-days before the contract was up. So 50 days before, I called them to cancel. Long story short, they lied and dragged everything out as long as they could, trying to run out the clock. So after about 4 weeks of that crap, I started calling them 1-2 times a day to get an "update on my ticket", sending them certified letters repeating what I was told, etc, etc. Within a week, they closed the account.

Re:AT&T

[BriggsBU]

I worked for Verizon before I worked for AT&T (I'm out of the cell industry now, thank god) and there seemed to be less inaccuracies in billing with Verizon. Of course, both tend to pass on any government regulatory charges to the customer (and there are a LOT). Municipal, county, state, and federal fees add up. That's why your bill will never be the advertised pricing. And I'm not talking just taxes. I mean, it is not entirely the carrier's fault. They have to make up those regulatory fees somehow, I just dislike the way that they name them so that they look like required fees from the government.

Re:AT&T

[BriggsBU]

Another secret to get your ETF waived is to change your address to a location where they don't have coverage. If you live in an area that shows as no coverage on their maps then they are supposed to automatically waive the ETF. When I worked there, they didn't even require proof.

Re:AT&T

[gl4ss]

sounds like a good way to get out of at&t if the instructions are to waive the etf.

Re:AT&T

[Anachragnome]

"Its called "firing a customer" and it makes perfect sense..."

And it sounds like you'd make a perfect candidate for a telecom CS dweeb.

In pretty much every business I've been involved with it is called "Taking the good with the bad". You treat EVERYONE with respect and EVERYONE respects you. OK, maybe not everyone...there is always going to be someone like you that just doesn't get it.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

Honestly, I think the fact that AT&T eats the termination fee just to get them out the door is actually good customer service. If they really wanted to, they could stick it to the customer and try to recover their costs by charging the fee they are entitled to, but they don't since they simply want the business relationship ended. As MBC1977 mentioned below, you don't have a right to have a company do business with you if they don't make money. It is only good business to decide who is more of a drain on resources than it is worth and seek to end those relationships.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

Well you assume that firing the customer can't be done with respect. There is no excuse to treat a customer poorly, but there is every reason to honor their request and let them out of their commitment hands down if they ask when they aren't profitable for you. Sometimes the best way to serve a customer well is to allow them to cut off ties politely. Keep in mind that AT&T is taking a loss by waiving the termination fee as there is a good chance that they had paid out for a phone at the start of the contract.

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us are red-headed stepchildren who have overcome diversity challenges and achieved more than being a meat bag, you insensitive clod!

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if Sprint or Verizon would see the light and allow phones with SIM cards on their networks like CDMA carriers do in other countries I'd almost certainly switch. Most likely T-Mobile will be getting my service next time I need domestic cell service.

I don't know about Sprint, but buy a 4g Verizon phone. It will have a SIM Card. I have a Droid Charge, and it's got one...

Re:AT&T

[Reverand Dave]

I don't think that AT&T is taking a loss by waiving the ETF, more like they are not capitalizing on an undeserved profit. Kind of like the bank taking a loss on a foreclosed property. The bank still owns the property, they just didn't collect all of the investment income, but overall they still have the property.

Re:AT&T

[Chris Mattern]

The customer should always be treated with respect, even when he's not a customer any more. That doesn't mean it makes sense to serve every customer.

Re:AT&T

[morgauxo]

That's awesome! I'm going to tell my friend who thinks he is stuck in an AT&T contract about this right now. Maybe he can reduce his plan to become a 0 or a 1 and then call to cancel! Is that all there is to it? Or would he need bad credit too?

Re:AT&T

[hal2814]

So a customer asks to have their service disconnected and AT&T not only does that but also waives the early termination fee? Yeah, what a "shit" move. I hope no other companies out there respond to customer complaints by doing what the customer asks and then some. I'd much rather spend half an hour while they transfer me to someone else to try to talk me out of what I specifically asked for.

Re:AT&T

[morgauxo]

Why? If the lowest level plans are sold at a loss then raise the price on them. If customers just aren't paying their bills then cancel their service and send them to collections. Either way I don't see 'firing' customers as being a good reason to have a scoring system.

On the other hand... at most of these companies those 'senior' representatives probably get better pay and commission for keeping a customer. The smaller profits made on a low tier customer might just not be worth sending them there. That only really makes sense if you expect the customer to keep calling back and doing it again. Otherwise even a small profit margin should make up for the 5-20 minutes they spend talking to the representative and any commission after a little while. Maybe a good scoring system should be how often they call, threaten to cancel and get a better deal.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

The termination fee is something they are contractually entitled to and in many cases covers the real cost of the phone in part. To use your example, it would be like the bank giving you the house when they foreclose, since the property they funded the purchase of is still yours.

Re:AT&T

[Reverand Dave]

My point really is that the contract and ETF fees are a ripoff. They are no longer providing the service to you so why should you have to pay for it. Its more like AT&T canceling you contract and still providing you the service.

Re:AT&T

[fortfive]

Forgive the sidetrack, but it's this kind of thinking that fully exemplifies what's wrong with the U.S. (and increasingly, the world) corporatist capitalism. When the prime directive is profit, serving people becomes secondary. And when so much of energy is away froms serving people, having a useful union "of the people, for the people" becomes impossible, and all kinds of suffering result.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

Maybe I'm not understanding what was originally being described, but I thought this thread started with an example that if a customer indicates they wish to cancel then AT&T won't try to keep it. If AT&T was terminating I'd agree with you, but in this case it is the customer leaving.

Re:AT&T

[operagost]

No, what's wrong with the US is the collusion of politics with capitalism. As long as fraud does not occur, a company is perfectly entitled to treat its customers however it pleases, and succeed or fail as a result. The only exception should be any natural monopolies.

Re:AT&T

[operagost]

You mean by having government intervention in areas like customer service where it doesn't belong? Government is needed in the case of monopolies, fraud and contract disputes, not customer service. If you don't like your phone company, leave.

Re:AT&T

[GodfatherofSoul]

Referring to previous poster...welcome to AmeriCa (C=corporate owned)! Our country grew into a world power with regulations on business and now we're heading back to 1929 by repealing them all because of the theorists who think government only exists to wage wars and cut taxes on big business.

Re:AT&T

[tompaulco]

If the fee is mandatory and not voluntary and the customer has no choice about it, then it is a cost of doing business and should be included in the carrier's cost and not passed to the consumer. If they need to raise their prices to cover it, that is fine, but advertising a price and then tacking a non-voluntary fee on is dishonest.

Re:AT&T

[tompaulco]

That doesn't always work. When I moved from Wisconsin to Oklahoma, the carrier I had did not provide coverage in my state. They STILL would not waive the fees. I finally got them to reduce it to half.

Re:AT&T

[tompaulco]

Unfortunately, getting yourself reduced to a 0 or 1 will probably affect your credit and your ability to get signed on with another carrier.

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously has not tried to start a new business in the U.S.A.

In California, the worst jurisdiction of the lot, it is now legally impossible to start certain potentially higly profitble and high wage paying manufacturing businesses.

Re:AT&T

[tepples]

The termination fee is something they are contractually entitled to and in many cases covers the real cost of the phone in part.

If the ETF covers the cost of the phone, then why don't I get a discount of (ETF / 24) off my monthly bill if I stay with a provider after the contract ends? T-Mobile gives such a discount, but an AT&T representative appeared surprised that any provider would.

Re:AT&T

[tlhIngan]

I don't think that AT&T is taking a loss by waiving the ETF, more like they are not capitalizing on an undeserved profit. Kind of like the bank taking a loss on a foreclosed property. The bank still owns the property, they just didn't collect all of the investment income, but overall they still have the property.

In a foreclosure case, the bank just wants to recover the amount owed. If all you have left is $60K in your mortgage and the bank defaults, all they want is the $60k back from the sale. Even if the house is worth $500K - the bank is just recovering its principal. Any more is a bonus given back to the homeowner as equity earned, but that's it.

ETFs are basically a way to recoup profit that would've been lost from the contract. It's why mortgages often have penalties for early payment and excess payments - the carrier, like the bank, has counted on certain revenue from that contract, and the ETF is basically a buyout from that contract.

ETFs are usually waived during the contract cooling off period (usually first 7 days they give you a chance to cancel with no penalties), and at the discretion of the carrier (usually if you're willing to sign onto a new contract, e.g., phone upgrade) if they feel they can get back more money from you.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

The contract is such that the phone is provided to you in exchange for two years of service with them. If you back out prior to the two years of service, the ETF is, in part, a means of recouping their investment since the cost of the handset will have diminished over time. Basically, if you leave the contract, then you aren't entitled to the phone because you didn't fulfill your commitment for getting the phone. This is why in many cases smartphone contracts have a higher ETF.

Re:AT&T

[tepples]

So in other words, if you don't plan to move out of a carrier's service area in the next two years, you'd be dumb not to take the new free phone every two years.

Re:AT&T

[Mr. Esterhouse]

The majority of the customers who have a 0 or 1 probably just have a flip phone with no data plan. Flip phones cost nothing these days so if AT&T is terminating their service and contract they are hardly losing anything except for an asshole customer.

Re:AT&T

[mcgrew]

The world is no longer isolated little cities spread across the planet. It's one global city now with the internet here. And treating people like shit for any reason WILL bite you in the ass.

And conversely, since it is a "single city" there are seven billion more where you came from, which is where the multinationals' anti-customer bias comes from. You don't matter, you're only one in seven billion.

Re:AT&T

[operagost]

America grew into a world power because everyone else's infrastructure was destroyed in WWII. Trust me, FDR's social programs had nothing to do with it, and antitrust laws go back to the 19th century. By the way, your straw man is showing.

Re:AT&T

[neonKow]

I don't think you actually explained anything he was bringing up.

His point is that, yes, that is supposedly what the ETF is for -- paying off the phone because there was an extra surcharge built into the contract that is supposed to be equal to the subsidy AT&T is giving me for the phone. If I'm on the contract for 2 years, then I basically bought the phone, so that surcharge should go away. Similiarly, if I join the plan with a phone I already own, there should be no ETF. That is not the case though. ETFs tend to be viewed as another source of profit rather than as a way to offset the cost of the phone.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

Well, as you mentioned, many carriers will give you a discount or other promotional to try to get you to sign another contract if you are out of contract and a good customer. I know on Verizon I managed to get an extra 100 minutes a month for a year after I had waited about 2 months from the end of my previous contract before getting a new phone. It's also worth pointing out that unless you have need of a new phone, it might not be worth binding yourself to the carrier again. Sure if you need a phone, it would be worth it to get them to contribute and if you leave, you would simply be paying part of the price of the phone, but if you don't need the new phone and end up wanting to change carriers then you are still spending money you didn't need to.

That said, yeah, if you are happy with your carrier (I love my experience with Verizon Wireless thus far.) then there really isn't that much reason not to take the upgrade whenever it is available and you would actually benefit from the new phone, which if you are someone like me, I always can make better use of the new. I'm not sure what I'll end up doing now that they removed the unlimited data though, it might make me not get the new phone as I would probably lose my unlimited data rate that I currently have.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

That's just it though, there wasn't a surcharge in the contract for the phone, they provided the phone to you in exchange for an agreement to do business with them for two years. The ETF is their way to recover a portion of what they paid for your phone since you are breaking your side of the contract. You never pay for the phone if you keep the contract. The fee for service is the same if you brought your own phone or used one they purchase for you, just you have to sign a contract if you want them to buy one for you. In many cases, (I know Verizon does this, I don't know AT&Ts verbiage) the ETF does go down as the contract progresses.

Similiarly, if I join the plan with a phone I already own, there should be no ETF. That is not the case though.

What carrier is that true with? I was not aware of any carrier that requires a contract let alone an ETF if you bring you have your own phone. Verizon will even sell you a phone at either a less subsidized 1 year contract rate or at market price for what they call the month to month rate. In the case of month to month (or bringing your own phone) you simply pay for service and there is absolutely no ETF as there is no contract.

Re:AT&T

[AJH16]

I just confirmed that AT&T also offers service with no contract, though you have to go to a store to do it (they don't do it online). They call it "No Commitment Pricing" and is referenced in their FAQ at http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/shopping-faqs.jsp#01

Q. What is no-commitment pricing?
A. When you want a new AT&T phone, but don’t want to commit to a long-term contract, no-commitment pricing is an option. Also referred to as "retail price," this option does not require a two-year contract or other long-term service commitment. It’s simply the non-discounted equipment price, and is available to customers that are not on a prepaid or GoPhone® plan.

You can buy a phone at no-commitment prices by choosing one of the two options below:

        Existing customers can buy online by logging in to your account to upgrade.
        New customers cannot buy phones at no-commitment pricing online at this time. Please visit an AT&T retail store to purchase. Visit our store locator for a store near you.

Re:AT&T

[dwpro]

I fled from sprint because of god awful customer service, then AT&T for an absurd amount of dropped calls from my then downtown apartment. I've been with t-mobile for just over 2 years now, and they've managed to not completely piss me off. The my only complaint has been the lackluster coverage when traveling, but @ home (in Austin, Tx.) I've been quite happy.

Re:AT&T

[hedwards]

Really? Last time I checked Verizon wasn't allowing phones to be used that they didn't specifically authorize. I do hope that that's changed.

Re:AT&T

[sjames]

Being on the cheapest plan alone shouldn't be a way to get fired though. If they don't want to have customers at that service level, they shouldn't offer it.

Re:AT&T

[sjames]

So the public has no natural interest in making sure the public property (spectrum and various necessary right of ways) loaned to the corporations is used for the public good?

I would say that if they don't like being regulated, they can hand all of that back and make private arrangements with everyone necessary, but they can't even begin to exist that way.

For that matter, incorporation is granted (it is not a right, natural or otherwise) contingent on the company's existence being in the public interest. I'm pretty sure poor service, high prices, and dirty tricks don't meet that requirement.

Re:AT&T

[davewoods]

Wow, the first time I read your post, I did not see the quotation marks, and thought that you would rather have the company fight to keep you. After losing my place and scrolling around a bit, I unknowingly read your comment again and saw the quotation marks, it was a whole new comment!
Internet sarcasm: 1 Me: 0

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

The sarcasm is strong in this one, Obi Wan.

"Rethink what's possible...

[milbournosphere]

'cause chances are you're not going to be able to do it on our network."

Hello?

[MrEricSir]

What was tha.. again? Sorr....... hear you.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

DOJ and FCC should approve the acquisition

[acjacinto]

AT&T just want to be on 3rd place on ConsumerReports and have no interest on being a monopoly

Oblig. Canuck Comment

[rueger]

Surely no worse than Rogers Bell Telus (choose yr poison)

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Saskatchewan, and have service throught Sasktel, the #1 ranked customer service in the country.

I have never really needed customer service before, but the cell/"4G" service has been okay. $80ish/month for 300 daytime, unlimited evenings, unlimited text, unlimited data. Its reasonable. Telus has some better pricing but I'm stuck in a 3yr contract.

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[Vegan Cyclist]

Yes, i wonder how this survey would look if done in Canada..

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[Nesa2]

Actually you'd be surprised. I was trying to switch US based customer over from AT&T to Verizon, and due to the craziness I ran into I started making a log. It is quite extensive and funny. Things such as having to make 15 consecutive phone calls in order to reach correct person to talk to as I was being disconnected, looped into menu, and put on hold by people for over 30 minutes while they "transfer me". This was just Verizon too... one of the better ones apparently. Verizon sales person took 3 months to do nothing after 20 emails sent to him, he was coming up with excuses every single time - so funny yet so sad. It's like they had ex-con working as corporate sales rep. It's like they did not want our business... AT&T was even worse if you can believe....

After this experience I started to admire service we get from Bell & Rogers... one phone call and sales team of either will take care of everything...

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[chrish]

You'd have Rogers/Bell/Telus ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd in the Canadian market, and whoever "won" would crow about how awesome they are. And all three would take the study to the CRTC and demonstrate how Canada's cell providers are the top three, and Canadians aren't being totally boned for craptastic service from an oligopoly.

Same way Rogers/Bell/Telus look at the various international ISP rankings and declare that Canada's still a world-leader in home broadband.

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[rueger]

I've never had a call to Telus or Rogers that was less than 60 minutes, and usually multiple calls at that.

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[Myopic]

"Rogers Bell Telus"? What is that, some kind of sexually transmitted disease?

"Dude, I think that girl from the bar gave me Rogers Bell Telus."
"Ew, no way dude! Did you get a greenish discharge?"
"Sort of. The discharge is sort of whitish."
"Oh, that's not Telus, man, that's the Clap. They can clear that up with anti-biotics."
"Thank goodness! If I had Rogers Bell Telus I'd have to get my dong amputated."

Re:Oblig. Canuck Comment

[Vegan Cyclist]

But wouldn't the CRTC have put out that study in the first place? ;)

It's not the real AT&T

[Spy Handler]

the AT&T today is in name only. It has no relation to the great company started by Alexander Graham Bell in the 19th century.

AT&T ceased to exist after the Feds broke it up in the 1980's. Apparently some dog turd of a company called Cingular merged with another turd company (SBC), and bought the name from yet another company (PacBell), and they decided to call the resulting mega-turd AT&T.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T is the name of the company that bought the name of the company known as AT&T. That actual company originally known as AT&T provided reliable (if slightly expensive) phone service, and invented (as the Bell Labs subsidiary) minor technological advancements such as the transistor and digital audio. Anyone used any of that digital audio stuff today?

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[erice]

Yes it is.

AT&T was broken up into AT&T (The long distance carrier), Bell Labs (relabeled Lucent), and regional Bell Operating Companies.

AT&T of today is Southwestern Bell (SBC) + Pac Bell + Bell South + Ameritech

Verizon is NYNEX + Bell Atlantic + GTE

CenturyLink is USWest + CenturyTel (not a Bell company)

Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and Bell South and was renamed when those two entities merged and acquired AT&T.

The Modern day AT&T is a reformation of the bulk of the old AT&T, albeit with management lead by one of the more ethically challenged corners rather than from the original top.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[phantomfive]

The AT&T which was broken up by the Feds was a monopoly that wouldn't let you plug your own phone into the wall. What we have now isn't so great, but lets not imagine that AT&T from the days before was cream and lollipops.

Also if you really want service from AT&T, go into the store. That's been my experience.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[HamburglerJones]

Steven Colbert had a pretty good bit on this when Cingular and AT&T merged a few years ago. (Fast forward to 2:21 in the clip)

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

The AT&T which was broken up by the Feds was a monopoly that wouldn't let you plug your own phone into the wall.

Yet we take the same kind of abuse from Verizon and Sprint every day without batting an eye. Yes, things have SURE changed for the better.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason why we called them Southwestern Hell back in the old pre-breakup days.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[Andy Dodd]

Yeah - I've always had good customer service from AT&T, but I always go to my local corporate-owned store.

Now device availability and firmware maintenance - AT&T is an utterly epic fucking failure here. They're unable to do even simple things that take people mere hours to figure out on XDA.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[pauljlucas]

... lets not imagine that AT&T from the days before was cream and lollipops.

Perhaps not, but one thing that many forget is that there was a lot lost when we lost the old AT&T. AFAIK, back when AT&T was a monopoly, there was an understanding that, in return for being allowed to be a monopoly, they wouldn't enforce patents for their inventions.

Bell Labs was the premier research institution in the world having the slogan "a patent a day." We all know that things like C, Unix, and the transistor came from Bell Labs royalty-free.

Post-divestiture, the former understanding was also dissolved. Collateral damage is that, today, Bell Labs is a shadow of its former self and we're all losing out on the inventions and discoveries that would have come from them.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[operagost]

The amusing part is that Cingular had previously purchased AT&T Wireless a few years before Bell South and SBC merged.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[NJRoadfan]

CenturyLink also took over Embarq which was Sprint's old wireline holdings.

Re:It's not the real AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

No. In 1984, AT&T was broken up into the following:

7 Regional Bell Operating Companies
A small portion of R&D went to Bellcore, which was jointly owned by the RBOCs.
AT&T (long distance and the old western electric company, which did manufacturing).

For me the only game in town

[pjbgravely]

I know how bad they are. Cingular was great but when they changed their name to AT&T their service dropped accordingly. They claim they didn't turn down the towers but everyone's service got worse.

I still use them because no one else has service within 4 miles of where I live. It is funny seeing people with other carriers try to use their phones in my area. They always say they always have service.

Re:For me the only game in town

[schnikies79]

Same where I live, it's AT&T or nothing. You can pick up Verizon if you walk down to the end of my driveway. In the house AT&T gets full bars.

Sucks.

Re:For me the only game in town

[jtownatpunk.net]

Remember when they merged and renamed all the AT&T Wireless stores Cingular...Then turned around a few months later and ditched the Cingular name, switching all the stores (including the newly acquired Cingular stores) back to AT&T? How many hundreds of millions of dollars did they piss away tossing out all those signs and replacing them? It wasn't like they just changed the name on the bills. They redressed every single store across the nation.

Re:For me the only game in town

[Attila Dimedici]

That was because when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless they only bought AT&T Wireless (which if I recall correctly had already been split off from the rump of AT&T that still existed at that time) and did not have the naming rights to use AT&T on any of the stores that they did not acquire with AT&T Wireless. A few months later, Cingular's parent company bought the rest of AT&T's corpse and renamed themselves AT&T.
Modern AT&T is not the same company as the original AT&T. A significant part of its corporate culture is inherited from the companies that were never part of AT&T. That being said, it appears that modern AT&T inherited many of the negative parts of the original AT&T corporate culture and none of the positive aspects. It then combined those aspects with the negative parts of the corporate culture of its other progenitor companies to give us the modern AT&T.

Re:For me the only game in town

[Andy Dodd]

Same here - Back in 2008, T-Mobile was completely nonfunctional for at least 10 miles, and I live along a fairly major road (New York SR 17, soon to be I-86) - even along a major road like that, T-Mo users received no service until they got to Exit 67 in Vestal.

Sprint isn't much better.

I hate AT&T for how they handle device releases, but at least they do have coverage.

Re:For me the only game in town

[NJRoadfan]

The reason the name stuck around after SBC became AT&T was that Cingular was originally a joint venture between SBC and Bell South. They weren't able to rename Cingular to AT&T Mobility until the new AT&T (SBC) bought Bell South and took full control of the cellular operations.

Mostly meaningless fluff

[DerekLyons]

The article is pretty much useless. While we know AT&T ranks lowest - we don't know what that means in absolute percentages. (I.E. they could be have a score of 99.98% percent customer satisfaction, and still be 'lowest'.)
 
But, that won't stop the cavalcade of anecdotal AT&T hate, after all Slashdot has to produce it's daily Two Minutes Hate against somebody corporate.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[phantomfive]

But, that won't stop the cavalcade of anecdotal AT&T hate, after all Slashdot has to produce it's daily Two Minutes Hate [wikipedia.org] against somebody corporate.

Exactly. It is well known that customer service from all major telcos is horrible. And it is only to be expected; after all, they're all corporations.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[bogaboga]

The article is pretty much useless.

Question is, "for who?" The article is useful for me because I now know which carrier to avoid when I get to the US of America later this month. How about that?

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[Anonymous Coward]

The evil empire is especially evil.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[Myopic]

Depending on your circumstances, the brand new Republic Phone might be able to save you money and frustration -- but only if you are the right kind of person. Check it out.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[tompaulco]

That is not to be expected at all. Corporations ought to have good customer service. If they did, they would be successful. Look at the airline industry. Horrible service, force people to endure gropings and x-rays, make them wait around on airport ramps for hours at a time, tiny seats with no legroom. And the airlines are all doing poorly, other than Southwest which notoriously treats their customers better.
Then look at the cruise line industry. Treats the customers like kings and queens. Provides shows, all night buffets, a different interesting destination every day. And they are doing very well.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[tompaulco]

All the companies scored 0 out of 10, so they just drew straws to determine the worst.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[phantomfive]

That is not to be expected at all. Corporations ought to have good customer service.

They would if Americans would pay for it. Americans would rather have lousy service and a lower price. Note this is different than Japan, where service tends to be much better.

And I am among those Americans, I would rather not pay extra for service I use extremely rarely.

Re:Mostly meaningless fluff

[Missing.Matter]

other than Southwest which notoriously treats their customers better.

I don't think that's the word you were looking for...

Even if they were ranked #1...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

They'd still be the #1 scumbag. Telcos are fucking evil.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all evil for pushing a mandatory data plan on smartphones despite these phones generally having wi-fi already built in. For most people, I guess needing to be on the internet every moment is a requirement, but I certainly don't need it while I'm driving, I certainly don't need it while I'm sitting in a bar with my wife, and I certainly don't need to to check my favorite porn sites.

I'm just a deaf guy who wants an android phone to text my wife and family with, and to check my email while I'm at my wi-fi bloated work when I can't be at my workstation. I don't need to be on the internet 24/7. I even offered to buy out a phone outright, and I'm still told that AT&T will still require me to be on a data plan.

Since AT&T like to give out numbers and terminate people based on those numbers.. I'll give AT&T a 1.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[schnell]

They're all evil for pushing a mandatory data plan on smartphones despite these phones generally having wi-fi already built in.

I know this spoils the Slashdot anti-corporate groupthink storyline, but the cellular carriers don't just do this stuff for the sake of being evil. The fact is that telcos pay a lot more for smartphones than they do for dumb phones, but customers generally still want "a phone" to cost anywhere between $0 and $200. So the telcos lose more money on every smartphone sale and in order to make that money back they make sure you are forced to have a data plan. The majority - although clearly not you - of cellular customers with smartphones want that anyway, so not a big deal. If they weren't charging you for a data plan they would be extending the length of the contract or something else... it's not being evil just for fun, it's making sure they get their money back on subsidizing your new shiny toy.

Here's a hint - if you want a smartphone and no data plan, buy a non-carrier-branded version unlocked at full price, then take it to one of the US GSM carriers and away you go. (With most GSM carriers, the smartphone plan automatic enforcement is based on serial numbers of subsidized phone models so if you buy some unlocked GSM smartphone that carrier doesn't sell, you should be fine.) Just don't expect the carrier to sell you a $700 phone for $100 and not charge you for a data plan and a two-year contract to make that money back for them plus interest.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so with ATT. According to some forum, people who did that were getting notified that they were getting a 20 or 30 dollar data plan smacked onto their account. Regardless if the phone is unlocked or not.

Besides, as I said earlier, I've offered to buy the phone outright (full price) and I've been told by several salesmen as well as customer services online that the data plan is still required. See link -> http://mobile.engadget.com/2010/02/11/atandt-forcing-smartphones-even-unlocked-ones-onto-smartphone-da/

According to them, the phone just won't work "right" without a data plan.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

My smartphone has a data&voice plan which starts at $3 per month, and goes up with usage. Since I only use it as basically an iPod touch (with WiFi), i only ever pay $3 per month for it. Not EVERY carrier charges a lot for mandatory data plans.*

Anyway I am sure you could find a way to buy a smartphone not from AT&T and use a regular SIM in it without them knowing. (They do know, f.e. when you use a blackberry, but I am not sure how they know... there is certainly a way around it).

Disclaimer: I live in Japan.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's all well and good, but the companies could offer to sell the phone for actual cost, and then not require the data plan. (Or give a discount on it).

What they are doing also means that since you pay off the phone in 2 years, anyone who doesn't upgrade their phone every 2 years is overpaying and being ripped off. They should break out the cost of the phone as a loan, and list it separately. Then when the phone is paid off in two years, you have a choice:
a. New Phone, New Loan
or
b. Same phone, decreased charges.

(Again, disclaimer, this is how basically it works in Japan, except you also do get some discount on the loan if you maintain a service contract).

As for the smartphone plan enforcement, I am not sure that's how it works. When I was in the US, I bought a Blackberry pearl through T-Mobile, and then I got them to unlock it for me. When I left the US, I gave it to my girlfriend, who stuck her AT&T SIM Card in it - and they immediately put her on the Blackberry plan.

Here my carrier (Softbank) has three types of SIM cards that will only work in their respective phones:
1. Normal/Prepaid cards - These work in feature phones, including all prepaid phones.
2. iPhone SIMs - These only work in iPhones.
3. SmartPhone SIMS - These work in Android and other smartphones.

Notes: The iPad SIMs are different yet again, and I don't know about the Data card SIMs. The SmartPhone SIMS start at like $3 a month, so it's not bad. The iPhone SIMs start at like $12 or something per month, but they come bundled with an iPhone email address.

Obviously, if you have an unlocked phone compatible with their network, and of the SIMs will work with it, at least for calls. I have tested this with an eMobile Android Phone.

They have a slightly legitimate reason for separating the smartphone and normal phone SIMs, which is that the data rate for normal phones is much much higher than for SmartPhones. (i.e. if you put a normal SIM into an Android phone and it did all kinds of synching in the background, you would get an enormous phone bills) - though they could certainly solve it in other ways. On the other hand, they have less of a legitimate reason to lock the phones at all, since the consumer has to actually pay off the loan for the phone. I won't buy any more phones from Softbank, even if I plan to use them on their network, because it means I can't ever give my phones as hand-me-downs or use them as back-ups unless they are both on Softbank and also of the same SIM type. Interestingly, the other carriers don't generally lock their phones.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[gl4ss]

why didn't you just buy the phone from expansys?
at&t doesn't "sell" phones. they rent them, the dataplan is the rent. imagine what kind of data service they could provide if the data-service fee went actually paying the data service and not just paying for some percentage of the phone.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[yermej]

I'm with AT&T, I have an iPhone 4 (bought used), and I don't have a data plan. I switched my voice plan to a GoPhone account. I add money to my account whenever I want and then I'm charged $0.10/min. for voice calls and $5/month/200 text messages. They won't let me use pay-as-you-go data on an iPhone even if I want to. I haven't worked it out exactly, but my bill went from ~$65/month to more like $25/month at most.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

this wasn't even the basis of why Telcos are scum. Smartphones are best when you've got a data plan. A smartphone - data plan = fancy brick that can sometimes make calls.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Myopic]

Indeed. This is the reason I don't have a smart phone -- the ONLY reason.

Actually I do have a smart phone, an HTC Incredible. It's very nice. I use it like an iPod, for music and podcasts and games and whatnot, but I don't have phone service for it. I have a candybar-style phone in my other pocket for phone calls. So, of course I would like to merge those two devices, but I'm not willing to pay for a data plan, so I'm not able to merge them. But consider doing as I do, and buy a cheap secondary-market smart phone (I paid $80, cheap) and just use it for the exactly things you mentioned.

Good luck.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Myopic]

I have heard and understand that argument, but it is -- let me put this bluntly -- complete bullshit. And we know for a fact that it is bullshit, because the requirement to have a data plan applies even to customers who already own their own smart phone device (as do I), despite your claim to the contrary. The policy is absolutely, positively, 100% obviously and incontrovertibly a greedy fucking money grab on the part of telcos who illegally and unethically collude with one another to fuck the general public in every possible way.

That is not hyperbole. That is the only reasonable explanation of the facts. All other explanations, such as they ones offered by the corporations, the same one you repeated, are transparent sophistries.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[tepples]

A smartphone - data plan = fancy brick that can sometimes make calls.

It's smaller (physically) than carrying a dumbphone and a separate PDA.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[tepples]

customers generally still want "a phone" to cost anywhere between $0 and $200. [...] buy a non-carrier-branded version unlocked at full price, then take it to one of the US GSM carriers and away you go.

So why do telcos charge the same monthly bill to both customers who want "a phone" in that price range and customers willing to buy up front?

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like you didn't read the post you replied to.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Dripdry]

This is correct. As of October? the new rules are that unless you have an HTC Relay/Reflex/whatever-it-is-I-bought or some horribly kludgy LG phone, you MUST get a data plan.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Blackberry and no data plan. I have had no issues with that. I got it through the company I worked for and no longer need it for that so I'm not paying for the data service (does this make me a 0 or 1?). I have NEVER been forced to add a data plan, however I am not under a contract - my 2 year contract expired about 4 years ago. That is not to say I love AT&T, but that is just not one of the issues I have with them. I did check earlier this week to move to another company but AT&T is the cheapest I could find (family plan)*. I have been with AT&T for many years, about 12 -14, and I've seen it all. I would say for the most part the support I received was better than what I have gotten from other companies. I've had no reason to deal with other wireless carriers so I can't speak to that. the signal is the biggest issue I have had.

The key to gettings service is to not just go to the closest store, many of those are actually 3rd parties or franchies that depend on making money by adding costs. If you have to go to the store then call the 800 number first and get setup in the system with the deal you want then go to the store and have them open that ticket (if possible). I think that is why they have web only specials.

* In part because I already have service and I could keep my phone service as is. Still, all things even and I think AT&T was still the best value (money wise, not service wise). The T-mobile $49.99 family plan is the biggest rip off I have seen. That would be $49.99 for each phone - Why is it a family plan again? Plus, they wanted somewhere around $600-700 just for the phones. Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

When you realize carriers sell to people who aren't just tech savvy dweebs, and that the number of people who buy smart phones now that don't want the data plan is relatively small....

Yeah, it becomes suddenly not the worst things that Telcos do.

Re:Even if they were ranked #1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the phones I've bought from AT&T in the past (non 3G sliders running proprietary OS by samsung, this was 2009 or so) for $100 should have been free when their value was probably about $50 from the manufacturer. I've never seen a $700 phone in person, and I've never seen one at AT&T for $100 especially. Granted the 3G iphones were $200 under contract at one time when they were $500+ sold separately, but if you were already an AT&T customer you could not get this deal. Even if you leave AT&T and come back, I was told by a manager, I could not get this promotional because I was a past customer. If you aren't going to reward people who are already customers with the same type of phone deals that new subs get, how is it worth it to stay? I'm not paying $500 for the same thing the new guy (who may or not pay his bill) gets for $200. I switched to Metropcs which literally cut my bill in half (more than half after tax/fees/etc) and haven't looked back. Yeah I buy my phones for full price but I always stay around $100-200 which has worked for me.

Re: AT&T installed CarrierIQ spyware

[muon-catalyzed]

Snapped my HTTPS encrypted banking credentials before the device onscreen rendering even finished. How come they are still in business?

Congratulations!

[lennier1]

They worked hard for that title and they deserve it.

Video

[antdude]

http://vimeo.com/16175616 ...

Re:Video

[Reverand Dave]

The epicness of this is only highlighted by the horrible horrible truth of it.

still the cheapest

[Pausanias]

Service quality is not so bad where I live. I can talk and surf at the same time. And there is no way, I repeat no way to have two iPhones under one plan for less than $100/month in the USA other than AT&T. Would I prefer to have Verizon? Sure, but not $50 extra per month sure.

Re:still the cheapest

[csumpi]

$50 a month extra (which actually worked out for less than that in my case) is little price to pay for phone/data service that actually works.

We had iPhones on at&t, and the service was terrible. If I could finish a phone conversation without dropping out, I felt lucky. Then we switched to at&t blackberries, which was a major improvement, but there were still some dropped calls. Then at&t took unlimited data away.

At that point I had enough, paid the early termination fees and got two droids with unlimited data on verizon. The call quality is great and haven't had a dropped call in over a year of being with them.

I never found a need for surf and talk. As long as navigation works while I'm on the phone (which it somehow does), I'm happy.

Re:still the cheapest

[mcgrew]

And there are two kinds of phones: iPhones, and phones that WANT to be iPhones.

Say, Mister shill, I think this tread might suit you better.

I know a few people with iPhones and quite a few with droids, and I see little difference between them. There are some damned good reasons why Androids outsell iPhones, and "android wants to be iphone" ain't one.

If you're not really a paid shill I feel sorry for you, because it means the PR has brainwashed you.

Re:still the cheapest

[BVis]

I know a few people with iPhones and quite a few with droids, and I see little difference between them.

Then you're not looking all that hard.

There are some damned good reasons why Androids outsell iPhones,

Yeah, they're cheaper, and people are cheap.

If you're not really a paid shill I feel sorry for you, because it means the PR has brainwashed you.

Yep, everyone that likes an Apple product MUST be brainwashed. They couldn't possibly prefer them for any VALID reason, they must just be crazy.

Of course, "valid" to you means whatever you want, so there's no point in debating it. Any argument that I put forward you'd immediately dismiss as 'brainwashing'. I could just as easily say you've been brainwashed by Google to like their products.

Re:still the cheapest

[mcgrew]

Any argument that I put forward you'd immediately dismiss as 'brainwashing'.

No, I can accept reason. I can't accept a simple "A is better than B and that's that" as if it's like saying "it's dark at night." Yes, iPhones are more expensive, the question is, is there any extra functionality that justifies the extra expense? I've seen none looking at friends' phones. Lamborghinis are nice, but my ten year old Chrysler gets me to work just as fast and safely as that $100,000 status symbol (which, without evidence to the contrary, is what I see Apple as).

FTR, I own neither an Android nor an iPhone. I'll get one or the other when I can use wifi without data charges. There's a damned good reaosn people like "cheaper" -- most people have to work for their money and don't want to waste in on a "cool" name like Apple, Nike, or Jaguar.

Re:still the cheapest

[BVis]

No, I can accept reason. I can't accept a simple "A is better than B and that's that"

And yet you immediately dismissed my "App support" argument. Convenient.

There's a damned good reaosn people like "cheaper"

Because they're short-sighted and know the price of everything but the value of nothing. If you don't value the things you buy beyond what they cost, then you're always going to have cheap crap.

Re:still the cheapest

[mcgrew]

And yet you immediately dismissed my "App support" argument. Convenient.

You never made an "app support" argument, or any other argument at all. And "app support" isn't a very good reason to pay a lot more for your hardware anyway.

Because they're short-sighted and know the price of everything but the value of nothing. If you don't value the things you buy beyond what they cost, then you're always going to have cheap crap.

Again, where is the extra value? And "app support" isn't much "value added", especially since Android is likely to surpass Apple in this; the app support is dependant on the developers, not Google or Apple. And from advertising alone (not Apple's or Android's), most now are supporting both platforms equally. "Get our app for your iPhone or Android!" is what I hear. Most of them also make me not like iPhone or Apple, since their apps are for functionality that any desktop web browser has out of the box.

What apps do iPhone support that Android doesn't?

Re:still the cheapest

[BVis]

You never made an "app support" argument

Take a look up, sparky.
but the app support is #1 and things "just work".

I think we're done here, if you can't be bothered to read my posts.

AT&T's Response:

[swonkdog]

We find the conclusions reached by Consumer Reports to be not only ridiculous but completely baseless as well. Our company would like to believe that it's service would be given a fair and unbalanced evaluation in the market but that is apparently too much to ask. Below we have chosen to refute a few of the more egregious claims leveled by so-called Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports asserts that AT&T's customer service is below average. This is completely untrue. Not a single member of our executive board had trouble reaching a service representative. All of our executive board member's questions were answered politely and completely. They were even told to have a nice day as they disconnected.

As to the statements that our system coverage is sub-par; they have obviously failed to take note of our previously stated plans to at some undefined point in the future to potentially undertake some form of consideration on the concept of improving coverage and building out our meaninglessly named 4G network. We are truly serious about thinking about these things and we believe that we should be given extra credit for taking the time out of our very busy day to contemplate things of this ilk.

We support our troops, orphans, nuns and puppies.

To the assertion that our customer satisfaction ranks at the bottom of the list. Completely untrue! Our internally generated satisfaction matrices inform us that customer satisfaction has never been higher. Our P.R. Department confirms that they believe our internal numbers to be accurate and will sign sworn statements to this effect. In short, we believe our customers love us.

In conclusion, we feel that this is yet another attempt by our enemies in the FCC, the Obama administration, Sprint and the Society for Creative Anachronism to slander our company's good name and prevent our monopoly from succeeding as planned.

Sincerely,
Your AT&T Overlords

alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

I just discovered that I've gone over ATT's obnoxious data cap, on my HOME connection. Can anyone recommend a good cable or DSL provider in the Los Angeles area? Thanks in advance!

Sorta like Terminator II

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The Modern day AT&T is a reformation of the bulk of the old AT&T, albeit with management lead by one of the more ethically challenged corners rather than from the original top.

Sorta like the T-1000 in Terminator II.

The courts smashed AT&T into a bunch of little pieces, which rolled around like big balls of mercury each doing their own thing. Once the antitrust restrictions timed out, the balls began to merge. When enough of them had merged the resulting blob reshaped itself into something resembling (but somewhat different from) the original structure.

Re:Sorta like Terminator II

[Anonymous Coward]

You should change your name to GreatAnalogyGuy

Re:Sorta like Terminator II

[Anonymous Coward]

He got that from Steven Colbert, actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCp-1hgfxI

AT&T is a Rats Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T has ALWAYS been the worst TeleCom on planet Earth.

Back in the frontier days of the 1980's the joke was, "The USA has the most advanced telecommunications system of the 19th century!".

Looking into the corporate shenanigans of Bell Telephone and the later day saints of AT&T in the 1960's leaves little doubt that idiots were then and are now even more intrenched and waging war on the rank-n-file and the citizens of the USA so to cement their kingdom.

Lets Nuke AT&T.

Better yet, lets post the CEO, CFO, COB and other's homes on Google Maps!

Then in a few days there will be tours of the rich and wicked ... bus loads of rubbernecks outside the home of the rich and infamous.

Splendid!

The bastards wont get a nights or days sleep.

Re:AT&T is a Rats Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this has to be one of the worst ideas ever.

ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[Vskye]

I've had all 3 services, and I'll just break them down service wise: Uverse: Speedy all around, latency not that special.
DSL: Really great and cheaper than Uverse.
Charter: Wow.. oversubscribed crap, less than a 56k modem.

Regardless, AT&T has won hands down in service and support. When I called up Charter on my slow ass Internet speeds I was taking to some script reading dude from India and well ya. I took the cable box and modem back to them and they seemed surprised that I canceled my service.

These are my only choices btw, and it sucks.

Re:ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[ndogg]

Experiences like that vary from place to place. I've seen areas where Uverse was as shitty as dial-up, and in other areas where it's no question the best service available. Same with Charter, and other cable companies.

Re:ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is about Wireless Voice and Data, not wired communications.

Re:ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[hawaiian717]

Last time I looked, AT&T U-Verse and AT&T DSL were the same price at the same speeds. The difference is that DSL provides slower and cheaper options than U-Verse, while U-Verse provides faster and more expensive options than DSL.

Having had both, along with Time Warner Cable (both RoadRunner and Earthlink), in the same city, I won't even consider TWCs offerings. Random connection failures that are sometimes solved by rebooting the modem and sometimes solved by waiting until the device sorts itself out.

Re:ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[Potent]

I agree. I have a load balanced connection using two 3m / 384k AT&T DSL lines at work, and a 12m / 1m Charter cable connection at home. The Charter stuff works pretty good for streaming Netflix or Hulu depending on the time of day, but for general purpose web browsing, pages load several times faster on the "slower" DSL. I usually have 100% uptime in 30 days on the DSL. I can't get through a full day without some kind of issue on the cable. I'd have the DSL at home but the Charter cable is the only thing available to me other than 3G, ISDN or satellite. And yes I know the load balance has the advantage of being threaded, but if I unplug one circuit it is still faster.

Re:ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[Genocaust]

Must be a local issue for you then. I've got the same choices here in my area and Charter is faster and cheaper. Had it for 2 years and working great. Low latency, full throughput (25mbit or 60mbit when I had that plan). I did have issues "initially" for 3 months or so, but I took it to the "Charter Direct" forum @ DSL Reports and got right to a plant manager who ended up having local construction re-run the mainline to my tap. No issues since! Never waste time calling their phone support, though.

Re:ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure that there is not a CLEC who can provide competitive (read: better) service for the same price as AT&T?

They're all the same

[jbov]

Verizon is no better. When the Motorola Razor was a big deal, it had a bug which would keep the data connection open upon receiving a picture message. Countless customers had data usage charges tacked onto their monthly bill because of this. I did. I called Verizon several times, at 40 minutes plus per call. They customer service representative told me I must have been surfing the web. I told him I was at work (at an ISP), in front of a computer, and was not surfing the web during those hours. Each time coincided with when I received a picture message. They had hundreds of dollars tacked onto my bill. I told one rep to do a simple Google search for the bug in the Razor. He said they would credit my account. He didn't. He left bad notes in whatever call logging system they had. Finally, about 1 month later, I got someone with brains. This rep said they were aware of the problem and applied a credit immediately.

Long hold times. Poor customer services. Lies. Getting hung up on. I've had the same issues with Verizon, ATT, and the latest venture Simple Mobile.

I swore I'd never go back to Verizon, but they are the only one with any service near my house.

Customer service sucks with all cell phone carriers. I've tried them all and have stories for each.

Re:They're all the same

[Igarden2]

"Customer service sucks with all cell phone carriers. I've tried them all and have stories for each." My experience differs sharply. I have had Verizon wireless service for years and every time I have had a need to contact their customer service I spoke to a real human that I could understand. I got my issues solved. AT&T on the other hand, jerked me around squarely. I detest them. YMMV

Re:They're all the same

[TheSpoom]

Speaking of the Razr, the new Droid Razrs (as well as other smartphones) have been having problems across the East coast on Verizon since yesterday, including mine. Basically, they're not able to connect to 4G, and often lose data entirely. If they don't get it fixed today I'm going to fight for a credit... which doesn't look good on them seeing as how I've only had the phone for about two weeks.

Re:They're all the same

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found a carrier that actually has decent customer service - Virgin Mobile USA, purveyor of cheap prepaid plans on Sprint's network.

A few weeks ago, I managed to get my phone water damaged (sitting in open jacket pocket during fairly heavy rain), and was quite dismayed that my 6 month old $300 phone had just been ruined. So I called up VM to inquire how much it would cost to get it repaired... and after about 15 minutes on the phone with a rather polite (though admittedly heavily accented) service rep, they overnighted me a new one and a prepaid envelope to ship the broken one back. I was astonished. I hadn't paid the $5/month 'phone insurance', the phone wasn't defective, and I hadn't even bought it from them (got it at Best Buy).

Now THAT is customer service. From a carrier I pay $25/month for unlimited data+texting and 300 voice minutes on a decent Android phone. Fuck yes. (The only problem is Sprint's not-so-great coverage and 3g speeds.)

Re:They're all the same

[mcgrew]

Customer service sucks with all cell phone carriers. I've tried them all and have stories for each.

Same here, until fairly recently when I found out about BOOST Mobile. Unmetered everything except tethering, which is against the TOS. It was only $50 per month, and someone at /. clued me in to a plan they have where you can get your bill down to $45, so that's what I'm paying.

What's even better is since I paid cash for the phone (a $100 motorola blackberry lookalike) and sign up fee ($50) and cash for the monthly bills, there's no identity stalking from them.

I've been with them about two years now, and the few issues I've had were cleared up promptly.

Their voicemail menu system sucks, but whose doesn't?

Re:They're all the same

[hawaiian717]

FYI, Boost is owned by Sprint, as is Virgin Mobile USA.

Re:They're all the same

[mcgrew]

Yeah, I know, they bought BOOST a couple of years ago IIRC. And to tell the truth, it tempts me to go ahead and pay $80 per month for unlimited data on a smartphone from Sprint because of that, despite the fact that I had bad experiences with Spring ten years ago. If they had unlimited talk and text I'd do it tomorrow.

Re:They're all the same

[hawaiian717]

I don't know what Boost offers, but Vrigin does have a handful of mid-range Android phones, and unlimited talk/text/data is $55/month. You pay more for the phone up front because you're buying it outright, but when I did the math a while ago (not with the unlimited plan though), you came out saving quite a bit over two years versus getting a phone for free-ish and paying more per month to subsidize an identical phone with Sprint.

Re:They're all the same

[mcgrew]

I'll have to check them out, thanks.

I just don't see it

[EmagGeek]

I signed up for Cingular way back in the day, and when AT&T bought them, my service got better, not worse. In all the years since that takeover, I've never had to call customer service for anything. Not once.

Re:I just don't see it

[Myopic]

Me too. Do you have a dumb phone like I do? I think we are the minority of customers who get good consistent service, because our needs are so so so simple.

My problem with AT&T is that I can't get a smart phone with them, because they refuse to sell me one on my terms -- specifically, I only want voice and text, not internet data. They won't sell me that. Whatever company ever decides they are willing to sell me that, WILL sell me that, because I WILL buy it from them.

Re:I just don't see it

[EmagGeek]

Yeah that is a sticky point with many people. I do have an Android phone, but I also don't live in a large city. There are maybe 20k people in our micropolitan area, and we do have HSPA+, so there is enough to go around.

I don't know if it would work, but you could buy an unlocked phone on ebay and just put your sim card in it. I don't know if they would pick up on that and start charging you. I know Android phones allow you to turn the mobile network off altogether, so I don't see any reason you shouldn't be able to have one and just use it on WiFi. It's stupid of them to force you to buy data when you don't want it.

Some Beauty Contest...

[gelfling]

Would you rather get brain melting prion disease or rabies?

Re:Some Beauty Contest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't agree more. The thought that somebody could be worse than Verizon will give me nightmares.

Thank you FCC

[barlevg]

Even though it might be delaying the inevitable, I'm glad that, for a few more months at least, I'm still on Magenta and not AT&T.

AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[MtViewGuy]

In my humble opinion, I think much of the complaints about AT&T wireless service comes from the fact the method of cellphone tower installations in the USA (smaller number of high-powered towers) work poorly with GSM, because most of the world, cellphone tower installations are based on a large number of lower-powered cellphone towers, which is far better-suited for GSM. The US-style of cellphone tower installation works WAY better with CDMA, which was designed with this in mind; this is why iPhone 4/4S users on the Verizon network report a lot less dropouts on cellphone calls.

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[HBI]

That's an infrastructure problem for the GSM provider, not my problem. I hear a lot about how "hard" it is to set up towers. That didn't stop thousands of the things from being installed, serviced and decorated like christmas trees in some cases over the last 20 years.

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[gl4ss]

gsm limitations?
the "usa style" cell-tower placing is a _choice_ from at&t. there's enough money per square km for them to make profit while keeping a decent coverage with their 850mhz band.

also, who cares about gsm? umts is where it's at. our country dropped 900mhz gsm ages ago, 900mhz umts is where it's at if you're at a summer cottage..

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[clonehappy]

That's an infrastructure problem for the GSM provider, not my problem. I hear a lot about how "hard" it is to set up towers.

Exactly. It's not that CDMA is better suited for the United States, it's that CDMA is better suited to the United States' mentality of maximize profits at all costs because it has no hard range limit. But if the OP is referring to the fact that some providers decided to take sites spaced out for an 850 MHz cellular band network and replace them with PCS 1900 MHz GSM radios, then wonder why they have a million little dead zones now, well that's just bad engineering.

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[Grizzley9]

I can believe that and also now know why those in big cities wish for a replaceable battery on the iPhone. AT&T combined with my updated 4S in a recent trip to NYC was not very encouraging. While I usually had at least one bar above ground, data was near non-existent anywhere in the city and with the limitation (carrier implemented?) of not allowing you to turn off 3G and go down to Edge like the 4 can do, my battery wouldn't last the day, even turning it on airplane mode when going subway.This made numerous stops to coffee shops to recharge a must.

I blame some of this battery loss on lack of signal and the phone pumping out more power to try and get it. But the lack of any real data use except for a google map now and then was killer. I wonder if the other providers fair any better in that great city.

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[Sarius64]

Recently, I paid $465 for a new iPhone 4S at an AT&T store. They instructed me (in writing) as to the process to follow once I received my new phone in snail mail to deactivate the old iPhone 3G and active the new 4S. The next day my 3G service was turned off. Subsequent calls over the next three days finally discerned that once your account is converted to 4S support changing that back will screw the account beyond (apparently) any supervisor's ability to fix the service. Essentially, I was rendered without phone until I received the 4S in two to three WEEKS.

So let me assure you that engineering of upgrade processes has got to be the worst thing I have experienced with the AT&T phone service.

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

its probably because they activated your new SIM...once an old sim is deactivated it's dead and there is nothing anyone can do about it - that's how the system is built. You might be able to go to a store and get another SIM to put in your old phone...but I'm also guessing you currently have parked equipment (the new 4s) that might have to be deleted in order to do that. If you get ahold of the right CSR (like me) then it can be done...but I know that most CSRs do not have the level of ability to do that. I've been accused of thinking too much outside the box, but I have solved many problems like this that our policy said cannot be done.

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like 1900 MHz GSM. What is UMTS?

Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations?

[Sarius64]

While I'm not trying to infer anything against you personally, I believe your comments provide evidence that this particular process is broken for millions of customers. Maybe you could put in a suggestion so that your process designers stop screwing customers out of service, mate. BTW, a week and a half without phone service. I had to buy a disposable for work.

Re:SCA's response to AT&T's slander accusation

[dkleinsc]

A massed army ... of nerds.

There Might Be Giants, Again.

[Thud457]

So you're saying they're no longer run by Prof Moriarty, but by people who are much worse?

Re:There Might Be Giants, Again.

[Attila Dimedici]

So you're saying they're no longer run by Prof Moriarty, but by people who are much worse?

And not nearly as smart.

Verizon Scored High?

[Murdoch5]

Has anyone actually attempted to use the Verizon network, I test on it and it's a pile. I have never seen service and support worse then Verizon. The other carriers listed at least have some decent wireless service, Verizon barely has phone that's even work with there service.

This is not news

[Jawnn]

The real news is why so many people/companies keep bending over and taking the reaming that AT&T gives them, year after year. So why is that? Anyone? Anyone?

Re:This is not news

[Myopic]

Because the marginal difference between carriers is small enough to be negligible. They all suck horribly and in inconsistent ways. For many people, AT&T sucks less than the alternative, but still sucks. When all the carriers suck, the only recourse would be to go without a cell phone, which sucks even more than the carriers do.

The new AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/1884400543

More like more psuedo-bars in more places

[alispguru]

In the Washington DC area, one bar from T-Mobile means you can talk, and if you're not moving you probably won't drop the call.

One bar from AT&T means you might be able to connect, and you are very likely to drop the call if you do.

Not sure about that

[alispguru]

AT&T's customer service improved in the years running up to the iPhone launch. They sucked royally compared to T-Mobile in the Washington DC area in the late 1990's.

We switched to AT&T to get the iPhone 3G, and anticipated major pain and suffering. The droids in the AT&T store screwed up the initial order, but the phone support people were actually competent and polite, and fixed stuff.

Our recent upgrade to the iPhone 4S was handled correctly the first time at an AT&T store in Greenbelt MD.

Their human customer service has been OK in my experience.

Their network still sucks rocks, though.

The myth of natural monopoly

[tepples]

The only exception should be any natural monopolies.

And the existence of those is disputed.

Tax rates vary within a market

[tepples]

It's a lot harder to absorb taxes (e.g. franchise fees, universal service) and cost of compliance with unfunded mandates (e.g. E911, local number portability) in the cost of doing business when these costs vary within a market. For example, sales tax rates in the United States vary from state to state, so companies don't include sales tax in advertised prices because they want to use the same ad campaign and the same price point across different states. It's also a lot harder to absorb them in the cost of doing business when your competitors aren't.

Re:Tax rates vary within a market

[tompaulco]

It's also a lot harder to absorb them in the cost of doing business when your competitors aren't.
You are exactly right. This is why it is a race to the bottom as soon as one salesman lies or one company starts inserting a line item for a charge that should be include.

What credit score bonus for expensive plan?

[tepples]

Unfortunately, getting yourself reduced to a 0 or 1 will probably affect your credit

How would switching to the cheapest plan negatively affect one's credit score?

Re:What credit score bonus for expensive plan?

[tompaulco]

Well you probably also have to not pay for a while and call up customer service a lot to get down to a 0 or 1.

ASL?

[tepples]

I'm just a deaf guy who wants an android phone to text my wife and family with

The data plan is for you to make sign language video calls.

I honestly dont see it.

[Lindan9]

I've been with AT&T sense my first cell phone (well actually it was Cingular) I've never had any problems or really seen anything to complain about. I never heard of of people complaining about a larger amount of dropped calls or no service until Verizon started running ads saying AT&T had more dropped calls. Marketing works I guess. I'm a touring musician professionally, I've been to most major cities across the United States and a lot of the in betweens I've never had any complaints about my phone not getting service. In fact, in my experience I usually get at least one bar when my Verizon using bandmates no service. I cant recall a case where they had service and I didn't

Why AT&T Lost Me As A Customer

[Anonymous Coward]

I had AT&T wireless from November 2003 to July 2011.

When I was ready to make the jump from dumb phone to smart phone, they didn't offer an Unlimited Data package.
Sprint did (and still does) offer an Unlimited Data package. So when I switched phones, I also switched carriers.

That's it. That's all. That's my entire reason for dropping AT&T.
The service was fine. The prices were reasonable. But no Unlimited Data plan.
Too bad.

You get what you pay for

[Scowler]

Let's say there was a telecom company with great customer service, and few dropped calls and generally quality data throughput.

And, to get that level of service, they are forced to charge each customer on average $100 a month with few phone subsidies.

We all know this company would attract few customers and would go out of business quickly. We only have ourselves as consumers to blame, really.

What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't skip building towers for 6-7 years while adding customers and expect to not have any network problems. After the Cingular merger thay had no money to expand for years, meanwhile Verizon did 5-6 TIMES the number of new towers annualy than AT&T in my Florida market and Nationwide too. Then th I-phone came along, more intense use of a already weakened network and the result is the quality of service you have now. No wonder the FCC report reamed them for the T-MOblile faked benefit filings and told them just to BUILT their own towers like everyone else. Everyone at T-mobile would of had a bill skyrocket if it went through and then worse service than even as they laid off the customer service offices of T-mobile.