Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Their churn rate is lower than T-Mobiles. How are people leaving AT&T in "bucketloads" exactly?

They're still loosing more customers than adding them. Their churn rate is 1.6%. AT&T/VZW are right around 1%. (last quarter)

http://bgr.com/2014/10/28/t-mobile-q3-2014-earnings/

By all means... please keep spreading BS. I realized a long time ago that facts don't mean anything in TMo threads.

So T-Mobile adding millions of customers in the previous quarters does not count, right?
 
So T-Mobile adding millions of customers in the previous quarters does not count, right?


You can keep quoting their marketing non-sense all you want, but the facts are the facts. Their churn is higher than the Tier 1 companies. Simple as that. This number was reported by TMO themselves.
 
T-Mobile appears to be the only carrier with unlimited LTE. Everyone else caps you or has you paying too much, but they also don't offer unlimited. My first month on T-Mobile I used 20GB. The month wasn't even up yet. And that was just me using it casually.

So then I started thinking, why was I ever on ATT? It only offers like 5GB. They seem to divvy it out. :/ ?

Umm - I dont use a lot of data (3GB max) per month that is how I get by without T Mobile
 
You can keep quoting their marketing non-sense all you want, but the facts are the facts. Their churn is higher than the Tier 1 companies. Simple as that. This number was reported by TMO themselves.

And how are the millions in customer additions not facts? Oh yeah, that was marketing nonsense reported by T-Mobile, yet their self-reported churn is "fact." :rolleyes:

You're the one one claiming that T-Mobile is "loosing [sic] more customers than adding them." What's your source for this?

T-Mobile's last four quarterly reports show net customer additions for both postpaid and prepaid. Care to append your "facts are the facts"? :cool:
 
Last edited:
There are still iPad Data Unlimited Plans out there, which is data alone for 29.99 a month.

Also keep in mind these unlimited plans wont be around for long, so o advise everyone to get while here, because as data exploded wireless providers will stop offering data unlimited and start doing exactly what ATT and Verizon are doing.
 
T-Mobile has no coverage where I live. Fortunately I have Wifi at work and home so it doesn't really matter.
 
I prefer having LTE over EDGE and GPRS on my iPhone so that's why I'm on Verizon with unlimited LTE data. T-Mobile barely even qualifies as a national 4G data carrier with all that 2G between cities. Unlimited EDGE for cheap or pay more for reliable LTE? I'll take reliability.
 
I prefer having LTE over EDGE and GPRS on my iPhone so that's why I'm on Verizon with unlimited LTE data. ... Unlimited EDGE for cheap or pay more for reliable LTE?
If you spend a lot of your time out in the sticks then that can makes sense.

On the other hand it's foolish to pay a bunch extra for coverage in places someone never goes.

Just curious, do you work for Verizon? The content of your posts makes it seem that way given the hyperbole and tendency to jump into non-Verizon threads with recommendation for Verizon. Just saying what it looks like from here.
 
If you spend a lot of your time out in the sticks then that can makes sense.

On the other hand it's foolish to pay a bunch extra for coverage in places someone never goes.

Just curious, do you work for Verizon? The content of your posts makes it seem that way given the hyperbole and tendency to jump into non-Verizon threads with recommendation for Verizon. Just saying what it looks like from here.
I guess if you never leave the metro area T-mobile is fine, but in many moderate cities, far from the sticks, T-mobile doesn't always have service.
 
I guess if you never leave the metro area T-mobile is fine, but in many moderate cities, far from the sticks, T-mobile doesn't always have service.
All T-Mobile has around where I live is 2G. I believe their nearest 4G/LTE coverage area is about 150 miles away. So unlimited data from them would be absolutely no good to me at 2G speeds. About as useful as a '64 VW bug at Indianapolis Speedway.
 
I guess if you never leave the metro area T-mobile is fine, but in many moderate cities, far from the sticks, T-mobile doesn't always have service.

Yep, which is exactly why individuals need to determine for themselves which carrier provides the best service/cost mix in the places they need service. Sweeping generalizations (e.g. VZW always the best, TMO always the fastest, etc.) don't do someone a bit of good if they can't get adequate service where they need it and/or an alternate carrier gives them all they need at a substantial savings.
 
I swore of T-Mobile for years because of bad coverage. Well recently joined a family plan where I pay $65 a month for unlimited. I live in southe jersey and travel to NY an Pa several times a week and reception is great. I stream live tv both ways and it's all HD without buffering. I will be using international roaming when in London, Manila and Dubai. Tmobile works for me.
 
Yep, which is exactly why individuals need to determine for themselves which carrier provides the best service/cost mix in the places they need service. Sweeping generalizations (e.g. VZW always the best, TMO always the fastest, etc.) don't do someone a bit of good if they can't get adequate service where they need it and/or an alternate carrier gives them all they need at a substantial savings.

Like Sprint. Always light up LTE in my area and no other carrier can give me the amount of data for their price.

And their latest deal for no contract is a free month if the smartphone is purchased at BB.
 
I rarely use more than 1GB data. I use wifi at home and at work, but I don't use public wifi due to security concerns. I tether my laptop occasionally for work and even that doesn't use that much data. Even when traveling I don't use that much data.

I originally had the unlimited data plans iPhones started with, but gave it up for tethering and a cheaper monthly rate.

I'm on AT&T. My wife is on T-Mobile and has unlimited data, but she doesn't go over 1GB either (she's grandfathered into the $70 unlimited data plan, it's now $80, so doesn't make sense for her to give it up). She has considerably worse coverage than I do and is considering switching to AT&T.
 
The coverage I get is fine except when in brick buildings. The coverage drops considerably. Actually it's nonexistent in places like college campuses. But, that's when it's advantagous to use wi-fi.

I used 20 gigabytes the other day and that was with light use.
 
I never understand this question. Maybe it's because I've had unlimited data for so long.

Why would you use WiFi if you have and are paying for unlimited data?

What sort of backwards logic is this?

By the way, we have 4 iphones.
1 Heavy user : with video, facetime, posting pics, watching videos with kid stuff, sending lots of stutt

1 Medium user

2 light users

Normal usage for the 4 phones comes to under 10gb a month - total.
 
What sort of backwards logic is this?

By the way, we have 4 iphones.
1 Heavy user : with video, facetime, posting pics, watching videos with kid stuff, sending lots of stutt

1 Medium user

2 light users

Normal usage for the 4 phones comes to under 10gb a month - total.
It's a very easy question.

I pay Sprint money each month for unlimited data. My UD plan is not throttled and Sprint has never put a limit on how much or how little data I can consume.

In return for my payment Sprint has promised me data.

If I am on WiFi, I am not using any of the data Sprint has promised me. I am using someone else's data, most of the time my own as I pay Cox cable for my home WiFi.

So, again, if I am paying Sprint for data, why would I not use Sprint for that data?
 
It's a very easy question.

I pay Sprint money each month for unlimited data. My UD plan is not throttled and Sprint has never put a limit on how much or how little data I can consume.

In return for my payment Sprint has promised me data.

If I am on WiFi, I am not using any of the data Sprint has promised me. I am using someone else's data, most of the time my own as I pay Cox cable for my home WiFi.

So, again, if I am paying Sprint for data, why would I not use Sprint for that data?
Let's see...

Cable Internet is more reliable, it's wired and doesn't suffer from as much packet loss, it has much lower latency, speeds are generally faster, unless you have a tower right next to you, you will get a stronger signal using WiFi, which in turn improves performance and saves battery.
 
Let's see...

Cable Internet is more reliable, it's wired and doesn't suffer from as much packet loss, it has much lower latency, speeds are generally faster, unless you have a tower right next to you, you will get a stronger signal using WiFi, which in turn improves performance and saves battery.
So what? I live in an urban city of over 6 million people. Sprint's been here with reliable equipment longer than I have lived here.

Sprint is capable of giving me 20mbps down on LTE on upgraded towers with proper backhaul. There's three upgraded towers around my home. I get good signal. But none of those towers have upgraded backhaul.

Same at work. I have good ping and good signal. I do not have good speed.

So, while what you say is true, it's still irrelevant to my service with Sprint.

And for the record, we do not have home phones. Nor are we using our phones for any heavy internet use over cellular.

It would be nice however, to be able to drive the 20 minutes to work and stream SOMA FM or Pandora, or Play Music and not have the connection cut out every time.
 
If you spend a lot of your time out in the sticks then that can makes sense.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that. You do not need to live "in the sticks" to have bad cell phone service.

I live in a large Charlotte suburb and I can't get anything except EDGE at my house on TMobile. And I certianly couldn't drive to Myrtle Beach and maintain HSPA service. TMobile has a lot of work still to do but hopefully, by the end of next year, they'll have the entire network footprint in LTE.
 
All T-Mobile has around where I live is 2G. I believe their nearest 4G/LTE coverage area is about 150 miles away. So unlimited data from them would be absolutely no good to me at 2G speeds. About as useful as a '64 VW bug at Indianapolis Speedway.

Do you live in Tucson? Switching to t mobile...my phones shipped today and I don't want to hear this! However I use WiFi 85% of the time anyway however it would be nice to have 4g in certain cases
 
Do you live in Tucson? Switching to t mobile...my phones shipped today and I don't want to hear this! However I use WiFi 85% of the time anyway however it would be nice to have 4g in certain cases

Look up your location on the RootMetrics coverage map. This is based on crowdsourced speed tests. Use the fastest speed found layer, because it should account for any newer results uploaded after T-Mobile activated its LTE bands over the last year. Another layer will identify whether the speed tests found any LTE signals. Keep in mind that speed tests occur more frequently along busy corridors, so the areas in between might still rely on data from older test runs.

http://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/us

For AZ, it looks pretty familiar. Good coverage in the metro areas, and a lot of gaps in between.
 
Here's my usage so far this month. Note that most of it's on WiFi because Sprint's coverage is crap.

This is without tethering or streaming video. Just normal use.

One particular offender I can think of is that I have three different apps/tweaks (my iPhone is jailbroken) grabbing data every 15 minutes. That happens whether I am handling my phone or not and I'm not handling my phone overmuch because like you I have a full time job, a wife and kids.

But, I also have plenty more apps that call out for data at various intervals too, Mail being one of them (over eight email accounts). And my phone is on 24/7.

What app is that in the screenshot?
 
So what? I live in an urban city of over 6 million people. Sprint's been here with reliable equipment longer than I have lived here.

Sprint is capable of giving me 20mbps down on LTE on upgraded towers with proper backhaul. There's three upgraded towers around my home. I get good signal. But none of those towers have upgraded backhaul.

Same at work. I have good ping and good signal. I do not have good speed.

So, while what you say is true, it's still irrelevant to my service with Sprint.

And for the record, we do not have home phones. Nor are we using our phones for any heavy internet use over cellular.

It would be nice however, to be able to drive the 20 minutes to work and stream SOMA FM or Pandora, or Play Music and not have the connection cut out every time.


I'm kinda mixed on this. I have unlimited data on T-Mobile (and att on my iPad). I still have fios at home though and use wifi. Sometimes you need wifi to download large files on iOS devices. My home is 75/75 with low pings. Great for downloading things off moviebox or streaming hd.

In public though I generally avoid wifi unless I'm not getting good reception. It's a privacy thing to me also.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.