Slashdot Mirror


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."

48 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. AT&T Customer Service is a big reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!!!

    2. Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason by smpoole7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  2. That's AT&T! by JoshWurzel · · Score: 4, Funny

    No bars in more places...

    1. Re:That's AT&T! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

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

  3. Famous quote by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    1. Re:Famous quote by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    2. Re:Famous quote by smpoole7 · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  4. AT&T by BriggsBU · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:AT&T by hedwards · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:AT&T by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:AT&T by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:AT&T by MBC1977 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    5. Re:AT&T by MacTO · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:AT&T by hal2814 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:AT&T by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:AT&T by operagost · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:AT&T by Mr.+Esterhouse · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. "Rethink what's possible... by milbournosphere · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. Hello? by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  7. It's not the real AT&T by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's not the real AT&T by erice · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:It's not the real AT&T by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:It's not the real AT&T by HamburglerJones · · Score: 3, Informative

      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)

  8. For me the only game in town by pjbgravely · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    1. Re:For me the only game in town by schnikies79 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Gone!
    2. Re:For me the only game in town by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:For me the only game in town by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  9. Mostly meaningless fluff by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Mostly meaningless fluff by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. Even if they were ranked #1... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Even if they were ranked #1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Even if they were ranked #1... by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:Even if they were ranked #1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Even if they were ranked #1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  11. Congratulations! by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They worked hard for that title and they deserve it.

  12. Video by antdude · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  13. still the cheapest by Pausanias · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  14. AT&T's Response: by swonkdog · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  15. Sorta like Terminator II by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  16. ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable by Vskye · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
  17. They're all the same by jbov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  18. Some Beauty Contest... by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Would you rather get brain melting prion disease or rabies?

  19. AT&T bad due to GSM limitations? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:AT&T bad due to GSM limitations? by HBI · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  20. Re:There Might Be Giants, Again. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

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

    And not nearly as smart.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  21. Tax rates vary within a market by tepples · · Score: 2

    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.