AT&T Repeats As Lowest-Rated Wireless Carrier 201
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."
AT&T Customer Service is a big reason (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.
Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason (Score:4, 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!!!
Re:AT&T Customer Service is a big reason (Score:5, 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
That's AT&T! (Score:5, Funny)
No bars in more places...
Hello? (Score:5, Funny)
What was tha.. again? Sorr....... hear you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe it's just that their service techs are in more bars.
More like more psuedo-bars in more places (Score:2)
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.
Famous quote (Score:5, Funny)
Video (Score:4, Informative)
http://vimeo.com/16175616 [vimeo.com] ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Famous quote (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about that (Score:2)
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
AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AT&T (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.
Re:AT&T (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.
Re:AT&T (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like a good way to get out of at&t if the instructions are to waive the etf.
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. Tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The myth of natural monopoly (Score:2)
The only exception should be any natural monopolies.
And the existence of those is disputed [mises.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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 drai
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What credit score bonus for expensive plan? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Tax rates vary within a market (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Rethink what's possible... (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig. Canuck Comment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It's not the real AT&T (Score:4, 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.
Re:It's not the real AT&T (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.
Sorta like Terminator II (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not the real AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
Also if you really want service from AT&T, go into the store. That's been my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
For me the only game in town (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern AT&T is not the same company as the original AT&T. A
There Might Be Giants, Again. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying they're no longer run by Prof Moriarty, but by people who are much worse?
And not nearly as smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly meaningless fluff (Score:3, 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 [wikipedia.org] against somebody corporate.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Then look at the cruise line industry. Treats the customers like kings and queens. Provides shows,
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Even if they were ranked #1... (Score:3)
They'd still be the #1 scumbag. Telcos are fucking evil.
Re: (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 w
Re:Even if they were ranked #1... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Even if they were ranked #1... (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.
Re: (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, decr
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 publi
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Congratulations! (Score:4, Funny)
They worked hard for that title and they deserve it.
still the cheapest (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T's Response: (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
Re:SCA's response to AT&T's slander accusation (Score:2)
A massed army [youtube.com] ... of nerds.
ATT Uverse / DSL vs Charter cable (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
They're all the same (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 [droid-life.com], 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.
Some Beauty Contest... (Score:3)
Would you rather get brain melting prion disease or rabies?
Thank you FCC (Score:2)
AT&T bad due to GSM limitations? (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
This is not news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.