Consumer Reports readers rank AT&T worst carrier in US

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 78
    enohpienohpi Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Wasn't this the same bunch of muppets who did the self promoting iPhone 4 write up last year?



    I think their credibility rating shrank to zero after that. They could tell me the sun would rise tomorrow and I would still treat them with a dose of scepticism.



    Seriously. We know that they are unfair to apple, and now, it seems ATT is in their cross-hairs.
  • Reply 42 of 78
    enohpienohpi Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post


    Am I the only one who has never had major problems with AT&T? I've been with three of the major carriers in my cell phone lifetime, and they all have their problems, but my best experience has been with AT&T.





    They seem about the same as Verizon. Both of them are just fine. I switched to get an iPhone, and nothing important is different between Verizon and ATT. Both of them have stores in every village center, and both of them have phone and online support. I live neither in the boondocks nor in any concrete canyons.
  • Reply 43 of 78
    After visiting Europe & using an unlocked phone with multiple sims, the U.S. 'wireless cartel' & pricing seem infantile. They've carefully profiled the buyers of the high-end phones and charted just how much they can gouge you for the data plans they have so much difficulty with. "Oh it's the geography...the US is so large". BS. It's US telco's with unlimited bankrolls paying off the regulators. FYI- The basic telco & wireless infrastructure was subsidized by the taxpayers. (Your parents).



    As for the CU customer survey it was a "city-by-city Ratings based on 54,332 responses about regular (contract) and prepaid service from ConsumerReports.org subscribers".



    How many "AppleInsider" opinions are surveyed here. (Actually verified to a real individuals?)
  • Reply 44 of 78
    2oh12oh1 Posts: 501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    Sorry, but Current Verizon users ( mainly Android smart phones) user more bandwidth than the average iPhone user...



    http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20012011-266.html



    The funny part for me is that I have better AT&T coverage near my home and my office ( rarely in the office ), but better Verizon coverage almost every where else...



    "71.2 percent of all AT&T cell phone subscribers, which includes users of smartphones like the iPhone as well as feature phones, use data services, while only 43 percent of all Verizon cell phone users subscribe to data services."
  • Reply 45 of 78
    envirogenvirog Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daemonk View Post


    Coming from T-Mobile, AT&T has been worse in all measurable ways. Price, service, coverage, you name it.



    They don't even have 3G yet in my city of ~327,000. Literally every last other carrier (including T-Mo) has it here. If it weren't for the iPhone, I would never look at AT&T wireless service.



    Sidenote: I'm super happy with their DSL and landline service. It's only the wireless that's a disaster.



    Wow that's scary to hear that. I'm presently a T-Mobile customer and I'm thinking about switching to AT&T next summer when the iphone 5 is released. I really like T-Mobile and wouldn't even be considering leaving if it weren't for the iphone. However, the next version is still a way off and perhaps Apple will show T-Mobile some love by then-I hope!!!
  • Reply 46 of 78






    I wonder if any of the Consumer Report reviewers resemble comic book guy.



  • Reply 47 of 78
    I cannot hardly believe there are those among us that are so technically incompetent as to defend ATT. ATT has HALF the cell sites of Verizons in areas ATT has 3G and so they are spaced farther apart then Verizon. Many of those cell sites still only provide 1900 Mhz operation.



    FACT: 1900 Mhz does not penetrate the walls of buildings as well as Verizons 800 Mhz systems



    FACT: Cell sites spaced farther apart resort in LOWER SIGNAL STRENGTH in a large portion of the area covered.



    FACT: Low signal strength resorts in more dropped calls.



    FACT: Low signal strength may result in ability to place a call.



    FACT: Low signal strength results in lower data transmission making it appear that the system is overloaded when it really is not.
  • Reply 48 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post








    I wonder if any of the Consumer Report reviewers resemble comic book guy.







    No that drawing represents a person who actually thinks ATT provides acceptable service.
  • Reply 49 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnwhite1000 View Post


    I cannot hardly believe there are those among us that are so technically incompetent as to defend ATT. ATT has HALF the cell sites of Verizons in areas ATT has 3G and so they are spaced farther apart then Verizon. Many of those cell sites still only provide 1900 Mhz operation.



    FACT: 1900 Mhz does not penetrate the walls of buildings as well as Verizons 800 Mhz systems



    FACT: Cell sites spaced farther apart resort in LOWER SIGNAL STRENGTH in a large portion of the area covered.



    FACT: Low signal strength resorts in more dropped calls.



    FACT: Low signal strength may result in ability to place a call.



    FACT: Low signal strength results in lower data transmission making it appear that the system is overloaded when it really is not.



    Well duh. Verizon puts more money back into the network. Of course they nickel and dime you more than AT&T, but they put your money back into the network so that's a wash.



    AT&T has been whining that they haven't been able to put up new cell sites due to lawsuits from angry NIMBY home owners. It seems more like an excuse today, although they have been complaining that it has been years since they last applied to the city of SF to try to get more towers and have been hit with a lot of red tape.



    I think that the whole truth will come out when the iPhone is saturated on Verizon's network. We should revisit this topic then.
  • Reply 50 of 78
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post


    This survey is flawed. All of the iPhone users are on a single network (AT&T). As everyone knows, iPhone users have a unique expectation level and they stress the network far above all other cell phone users. This has skewed the results.



    Did the iPhone prevent AT&T from adding additional towers for coverage or upgrading most of the data systems from edge?
  • Reply 51 of 78
    shadashshadash Posts: 470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post


    That pretty much makes you an asshole then.



    Case of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it.
  • Reply 52 of 78
    enohpienohpi Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post


    Consumer report is against the iPhone so as far as I am concerned I do not put too much stock on what they say. I have been with the other carriers and I was not happy with any of them.



    What does Consumer Reports say about Android?
  • Reply 53 of 78
    Count me among those who have had no issues with AT&T. I've used their customer service and found it very helpful, where I live their 3G has generally been fast, and I've had very few problems with dropped calls. All of this on an iPhone 3G in the Hampton Roads, VA area. I considered waiting and switching to Verizon and finally asked myself "Why am I delaying upgrading when I have no issues with the company or their service?" Although I suspect that there really are areas where AT&T coverage is poor, I believe a whole lot of the AT&T bashing is F.U.D. and not actually based on fact. Much like many things you read in the tech media these days... Thank God for the Macalope!
  • Reply 54 of 78
    enohpienohpi Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post


    It was only a few days during the summer, but when my wife and I were in NYC, we had absolutely zero problems, except for when we'd walk down to the subway (duh!). I consistently had 4-5 bars in the middle of downtown Manhatten, and even had a consistent 1-2 bars on Liberty Island, which I think is pretty good. All of this was 3G as well, I never dropped to EDGE. No slow data connections, no dropped calls when I did call people, nothing. I'm not going to be one of those people that says some kind of problem doesn't potentially exist, but in my experience, I never even worried about it.





    you know how it is. some people just like to complain. there is a sense of entitlement.
  • Reply 55 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Wasn't this the same bunch of muppets who did the self promoting iPhone 4 write up last year?



    I think their credibility rating shrank to zero after that. They could tell me the sun would rise tomorrow and I would still treat them with a dose of scepticism.



    This is a CR reader survey, not an editorial review by the CR staff. Consumer Reports does an annual reader survey of U.S. mobile operators.



    Here are the results from December 2009:



    Verizon: 75

    T-Mobile: 70

    Sprint: 67

    AT&T: 66



    http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ervice-survey/



    You can blame CR for their review of the iPhone 4. However, blame their readers for these survey results, not the editorial staff.



    In 2010, Sprint got a little better. Everybody else scored worse including Verizon. None of the scores are particularly stellar which doesn't surprise me considering the overall quality of cellular service in the United States. Our mobile operators suck: all of them.
  • Reply 56 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnwhite1000 View Post


    I cannot hardly believe there are those among us that are so technically incompetent as to defend ATT. ATT has HALF the cell sites of Verizons in areas ATT has 3G and so they are spaced farther apart then Verizon. Many of those cell sites still only provide 1900 Mhz operation.



    FACT: 1900 Mhz does not penetrate the walls of buildings as well as Verizons 800 Mhz systems



    FACT: Cell sites spaced farther apart resort in LOWER SIGNAL STRENGTH in a large portion of the area covered.



    FACT: Low signal strength resorts in more dropped calls.



    FACT: Low signal strength may result in ability to place a call.



    FACT: Low signal strength results in lower data transmission making it appear that the system is overloaded when it really is not.



    FACT: The vast majority AT&T's 3G network runs on 850 MHz. As does some of their EDGE network.



    Also, GSM networks and CDMA networks are implemented differently. Number of towers makes a difference to a point, but your argument is misleading - because for example 1 UMTS tower does both voice and data, where as Verizon has 1 tower for each vice and data (CDMA2000 and EVDO). Maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of 'sites' though.



    Not that any of this will matter to you, you most likely work for Verizon anyways.
  • Reply 57 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buckdutter View Post


    FACT: The vast majority AT&T's 3G network runs on 850 MHz. As does some of their EDGE network.



    Also, GSM networks and CDMA networks are implemented differently. Number of towers makes a difference to a point, but your argument is misleading - because for example 1 UMTS tower does both voice and data, where as Verizon has 1 tower for each vice and data (CDMA2000 and EVDO). Maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of 'sites' though.



    Not that any of this will matter to you, you most likely work for Verizon anyways.





    Only towers in the very largest metropolitan areas have been upgraded to 850 Mhz. Well over half of total ATT 3g sites still operate at 1900 Mhz.



    FACT: Basic RF. As one gets farther from a radiation source signal strength decreases. Your GSM versus CDMA argument is TOTAL NONSENSE. Verizon voice and data are both provided from the SAME cell site. But with different equipment of course.
  • Reply 58 of 78
    mgl323mgl323 Posts: 247member
    Service has been fine where I live. No complaints so far.
  • Reply 59 of 78
    AT&T shold credit us a month of data to make customers happy, or lower the cost and not cap it at 2GB
  • Reply 60 of 78
    I live in long beach ca and att is fine. This year I've been to Seattle, Tacoma, San Fran, napa valley, sacromento, yosemite, st Louis, Detroit, Toledo, Hartford. Weak spots have been only yosemite and Toledo. Also fringe mountain areas of southern cal. All airports and malls etc in these areas att is fine. That said, I do know verizon voice(don't know about data) covered these weak areas much better. I know what I get with att, and do know they have weak spots. If I lived in those weak areas, iPhone would be a pain in the arse. IMO it seems since att iPhone is so tied to data, that these weak areas really bring iphone use-ability to cliff. There does not seem to be voice only priority. Just my impression, not a cell engineer
Sign In or Register to comment.