Slashdot Asks: Which Wireless Carrier Do You Prefer?

Earlier this year, telecommunications giants like T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon and Sprint were battling to see who could release the best unlimited data plan(s). T-Mobile started the domino chain reaction with the launch of its "One" unlimited plan in August. But the competition became especially fierce in February when Verizon introduced unlimited data plans of their own, causing Sprint and AT&T to unveil new unlimited data plans that same week, both of which have their own restrictions and pricing. Each of the four major carriers have since continued to tweak their plans to ultimately undercut their competitors and retain as many customers are possible.

Given how almost everyone has a smartphone these days and the thirst for data has never been higher, we'd like to ask you about your current wireless carrier and plan. Which wireless carrier and plan do you have any why? Is there any one carrier or unlimited data plan that stands out from the others? T-Mobile, for example, recently announced that it added 1.1 million customers in Q1 2017, which means that it has added more than 1 million customers every quarter for the past four years. Have they managed to earn your business? MyRatePlan has a good breakdown of the current unlimited data plans on the market today.

Comments

AT&T

[slasher999]

AT&T customer here for several years. Evaluated all of the main carriers and a few mvno plays last year, including a trial with T-Mobile who came the closest in service quality. Ended up staying with AT&T.

Re: AT&T

[schnell]

Coverage / signal reliability varies by specific location. Bandwidth during peak times also varies, load increases then they up backhaul bandwith and it gets better for a while.

Full disclosure: I work for one of the four big carriers. But this isn't a commercial for my unnamed employer, it's just a description of why they are different.

There is a fundamental strategy difference between AT&T/Verizon and Sprint/T-Mobile. The key, of course, is money. And as a customer, you do get what you pay for.

Did you know that in the US, almost 70% of the population lives in 3% of the landmass? (That sounds shocking until you think about Alaska, Montana, West Texas, Nevada and Wyoming.) It doesn't take (comparatively) that many towers to cover the 70%. But it takes a disproportionately higher number more to cover the next 10% of the population. And the next 10% after that take almost half again the number of towers. The expense gets higher and higher as you try to reach 99% of the population (which is contained in roughly 70% of the land area of the US).

If you have the money to buy the spectrum and build the towers, you can choose to cover as many people as possible (and the side benefit is that you provide better coverage for people who travel a lot, especially to rural areas). If you have the money, you can also spend the billions on spectrum needed for the capacity to support users in dense areas and the backhaul to go with it. AT&T and Verizon, because they have the big subscriber/revenue bases and the cost advantages of legacy ILEC backhaul facilities in collectively more than half the states, choose that path. But it all costs money to do that, and you as a consumer pay more for the coverage quality.

Sprint and T-Mobile don't have the big piles of money or the huge subscriber bases. The good news for them: like I said, it costs a lot less money in tower building to cover 70% of the US population, and if you have fewer subscribers then you don't have to shell out as much on spectrum and backhaul. They have chosen (probably wisely, given their bank accounts) to go for the low hanging fruit, which costs less money and they can price their service more aggressively because they aren't trying to spend the money to cover everybody. So their strategy works well for most people, although if it works TOO well, then they have to start shelling out money that they don't have for more spectrum. (Sprint already has more spectrum than they know what to do with, but most of it is high-band ex-Clearwire WiMax spectrum that is almost useless in dense urban areas with lots of buildings to penetrate.)

So the bottom line is:

• Live in an urban area and spend most of your time there? T-Mobile or Sprint are likely to meet your needs.
• Live in a suburban/rural area, travel much and/or want to make sure you've got connectivity wherever you go? Verizon or AT&T are probably a better choice.

Keeping the subject matter relevant to geeks

[redmid17]

It's not as if there is a website that does yearly reviews of things like this: http://www.consumerreports.org...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ting

[msk]

https://ting.com/

Re:T-Mo

[magarity]

I have to travel internationally every couple of years and the TMo international is no joke. Upon landing in Beijing you get a 'Welcome to China' text and service includes unlimited pokey 2G data speed data that goes straight through TMo's US servers so the websites blocked normally in China work just fine. Coverage is most excellent; pretty much any city or town, just not out in the countryside.

In the pacific northwest, Verizon.

[eggman9713]

I've been with AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile in the pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon mostly) for the last several years. During that time I have traveled both to the more metropolitan western Oregon and Washington, as well as the more rural eastern sides of the states. AT&T is pretty good around major metros and most semi-rural areas. T-mobile is very spotty outside of the metros and most major interstates, and many rural areas of eastern Washington and Oregon they have zero coverage at all. I've never used Sprint in this area but I don't know anyone who even has Sprint so that should tell you something. Verizon seems to have the best overall coverage in the pacific northwest, especially the more rural areas. Even when really out in the middle of nowhere they always seem to have some coverage to at least get a call out if nothing else. I can't speak for Idaho as I have not traveled in that area in several years. All of the major companies are awful in terms of pricing and customer service when you have a problem, but the best of all of the evils seems to be Verizon in my experience in this region of the US.