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

[chipschap]

I went from Verizon to T-Mobile to Google Fi, which suits me well as a very low-end mobile data user (typically 500MB per month mobile and 25GB wifi). It would be a terrible choice for heavy mobile data users, though, as data is strictly pay as you go (a cent per megabyte). And what I do like is that they don't pack in every conceivable fee like some of the others. $20 per month, about $5 for data, and $5 in taxes and fees.

Re: AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T and Verizon tend to flipflop in terms of which has better price offerings and which has bigger asshole policies and shitty customer service.
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.

So for me, Verizon is currently better where I am. Two years ago it was AT&T, and in a year they'll probably be better again.

But both of them still piss me off all the time. Better isn't usually the same as Good in this game.

Re: AT&T

[WaywardGeek]

Full disclosure: I work for Google. Regardless, Google Fi is a no-brainer, IMO. My wife and daughter do not agree, and have iPhones with Verison. We pay about $160/mo combined for their plans, while my son and I get by with typically $40/mo combined. My son and I have at least as good service as Verizon, because of the switching between Sprint and T-Mobile.

My daughter had to have an iPhone, and not an Android device, because her friends hang out on iMessage. Her Android messages were shown in the wrong color on iMessage, which offended some teens to the point of excluding her from conversations. So... I pay a $60/month premium so she can be the right color. Evil!

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.

Re: AT&T

[ausekilis]

If teenagers were offended by the color of a text message, maybe your daughter shouldn't be considering them friends. Anybody that petty doesn't deserve the attention.

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...

No data, pay as you go only.

[Tyr07]

I have wifi in enough places if I actually need data, and otherwise I'm out and about, and don't need it.

I refuse to deal with contracts, locking me into shitty deals when better ones come out, their prices are over the top for data as is, always has been.

They keep trying to add more value but take more dollars while as employers they keep trying to add more value but not pay more. People are trying to minimize the money you get constantly while trying to maximize what they take from you.

Their only luck when it comes to me is that in todays day and age everyone has to have a phone, and a landline is just as expensive (as intended).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Project Fi

[DiSKiLLeR]

I use Google Project Fi. Just because.

Re:Project Fi

[chmod a x mojo]

Same here, no regrets.

I get coverage from T-Mobile, Sprint, and U.S. Cellular, so you really have to be in the middle of bum fuck nowhere to not have anything.

The only downside would be to people who are heavy mobile data users, as it is strictly pay for what you use on data. With WIFI being everywhere I only use a small amount of mobile data these days, so paying ~$24-25/ month for phone + data is pretty sweet, especially after years and years with VZW and USC.

Ting

[msk]

https://ting.com/

This question is very subjective...

[sudden.zero]

...it really depends on so many variables that there is no accurate answer. For example I am currently a T-Mobile customer, and have been for several years. Their service, for me, was very good until about four years ago. Then about four years ago my usage, and coverage area changed. I used to use my service mainly in major metropolitan areas, and T-Mobile is great in those types of areas. However, the minute you are anywhere out of the ordinary T-Mobile's service goes down the toilet. Four years ago a couple of things changed for me: My parents retired, and became part owners of a resort. I also bought a boat around the same time. These details are important because whenever I am on my boat or at the resort I have no service. This brings me to my next point which is anytime I see someone using their phone at the resort or on the water I ask them what carrier they use. The answer is almost always Verizon, and if it is not it's AT&T. Not a single person has ever answered that question with T-Mobile or Sprint. Nor has anyone ever said Cricket, Boost, Freedom Pop, etc. Just my opinion whatever that's worth.

Especially when

[s.petry]

You travel overseas. AT&T makes this very simple and has deals with local phone companies in ever country I, and people I know, have traveled. It took all of 2 minutes to enable, and while perhaps a few bucks more than some of the other methods required nothing extra. No hardware swapping, no hassle.

Prices have come down recently, which made me happy. Price was my only knock against AT&T, and I have been a customer since the iPhone 3 which had no choice but AT&T.

T-Mobile, despite issues

[Octorian]

Unfortunately, we only have 4 real options in the US. Everyone else is just piggybacking on one of them.

I like to be able to use whatever phone I want, gotten from anywhere, without needing to buy it through my carrier, and which I can keep updated without needing to crack it.
That means I refuse to use a carrier with a sufficiently proprietary network technology that enables them to be assholes about devices. This excludes Verizon and Sprint right off the bat.

So my only real options are AT&T or T-Mobile. Since T-Mobile has gone out of their way to be the least-jerk'ish mobile carrier in the US, while AT&T generally hasn't, I've basically stuck with T-Mobile. Sure, their coverage may not always be the best, but it does keep improving. And if I ever actually want to travel, I don't need to worry about having to shut off my phone to not be totally gouged on the bill.

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.

Re:T-Mo

[gweilo8888]

Project Fi is also limited to just a couple of handsets, and *far* more expensive unless you don't use much data.

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.

Re:T-Mobile == Carrier From Hell

[Mr.Radar]

T-Mobile hasn't had contracts since 2013 so your story is at least a few years old. Over the past few years they've completely revamped their network and rolled out lots of new coverage (mostly by acquiring "low-band" spectrum that lets them cover 4x the area per tower of their previous "mid-band" spectrum). They've also rolled out wifi calling (which lets you make and receive calls and texts over wifi) and "CellSpot" units that let you use your home internet to provide cell coverage at your house if you're in a complete dead zone.