ssavoy Premium Member join:2007-08-16 Dallas, PA |
ssavoy
Premium Member
2012-Nov-30 10:35 am
Tarnished NameI wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T. | |
|
| IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Re: Tarnished NameLook in your history books and AT&T/Bell System had a monopoly on wireline telephone service like Comcast and Verizon have a duopoly on high speed Internet today.
If US District Court judge Harrold Greene would have not been brave enough to break up Bell System, they would probably have a monopoly on cell phone service as well. | |
|
| | |
Re: Tarnished NameI have lived all over the country and never even had Comcast or Verizon as an option for high speed internet...hardly a duopoly... | |
|
| | |
to IowaCowboy
"they would probably have a monopoly on cell phone service as well."
If we were lucky enough to have it at a reasonable price... | |
|
| | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:If US District Court judge Harrold Greene would have not been brave enough to break up Bell System, they would probably have a monopoly on cell phone service as well. Brave judge? I think not. Case was filed by DoJ. AT&T chose "consent" over battle because consent removed the barrier to AT&T entry into the computer business; i.e., AT&T agreed to be broken up because they saw an advantage to doing so. Where is the "courage" in that? | |
|
| | | WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2012-Nov-30 10:39 pm
Re: Tarnished NameThis is correct info that few people know. Several other big companies were in the same boat but won their cases. The AT&T name was bought by the baby bell SBC for PR reasons after AT&T went bankrupt. | |
|
| | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Tarnished Namesaid by WhatNow:This is correct info that few people know. Several other big companies were in the same boat but won their cases. The AT&T name was bought by the baby bell SBC for PR reasons after AT&T went bankrupt. I am trying to find the bankruptcy filing for AT&T. It appears that AT&T took a hit when Worldcom filed for bankruptcy, but ... It seems that Cingular Wireless, the joint SBC-Bellsouth venture, bought the "AWEful" AT&T TDMA network, but AT&T had retained the right to the "AT&T Wireless" name. This put Cingular in a poor competitive position. I suppose "PR" is the short of it. But SBC re-branded as AT&T, then bought Bellsouth on the heels of the AT&T buyout. I'd guess that then SBC CEO, Ed Whitacre, wanted the whole shebang: 100% control of Cingular (SBC-Bellsouth merger) and the AT&T Wireless brand. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Tarnished Namesaid by NormanS:said by WhatNow:This is correct info that few people know. Several other big companies were in the same boat but won their cases. The AT&T name was bought by the baby bell SBC for PR reasons after AT&T went bankrupt. I am trying to find the bankruptcy filing for AT&T. It appears that AT&T took a hit when Worldcom filed for bankruptcy, but ... I don't think you'll find one. I don't recall AT&T ever filing for bankruptcy. They were getting close, tho. said by NormanS:I suppose "PR" is the short of it. My take has always been SBC figured to kill two birds with one stone: Lose the bad image they had and gain the cachet of being "AT&T." And it worked, after a fashion. Many, perhaps most, non-TelCom people I talked to thought AT&T had bought SBC, et al. Of course, eventually people figured it out, because SBC didn't actually change anything except their name. said by NormanS:But SBC re-branded as AT&T, then bought Bellsouth on the heels of the AT&T buyout. Close. SBC re-branded itself as "AT&T," then bought-out BellSouth's share of Cingular and renamed it "AT&T Wireless," then borged BellSouth. Jim | |
|
| | | | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA |
Re: Tarnished NameI still encounter people who think that AT&T bought SBC. And SBC was probably the worst of the "Baby Bells" ... except for the Pacific Telesis Group. | |
|
| djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV
1 recommendation |
to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T. I completely agree. The #1 ranked Consumer Cellular rides on AT&T's network! AT&T really hasn't been that bad in my area and areas I travel to. I'm not at all impressed with Verizon (I have a prepaid account just for my iPad), but I keep them because they allow me to turn on the tether feature at the $30/month price point. If you look at the CR survey, Verizon didn't earn a single "Excellent" mark. Not even in the Data or 4G categories! I don't mind seeing AT&T at the bottom though. It keeps them in check. | |
|
| | |
en103
Member
2012-Nov-30 11:19 am
Re: Tarnished Namesaid by djrobx:I don't mind seeing AT&T at the bottom though. It keeps them in check. I agree - make them work for their cudos. AT&T's HSPA+ LTE network in Santa Clarita is pretty fast (I've hit 14Mbps), and in general, my complaints are more with their PR than their network (throttlegate, Facetimegate). | |
|
| | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2012-Nov-30 11:35 am
Re: Tarnished Namesaid by en103:I agree - make them work for their cudos. AT&T's HSPA+ LTE network in Santa Clarita is pretty fast (I've hit 14Mbps), and in general, my complaints are more with their PR than their network (throttlegate, Facetimegate). Exactly. I can only imagine the kind of crap they'd pull if they weren't battling customer perception issues. I haven't seen AT&T LTE in SCV yet, but HSPA works well enough that I don't mind. Verizon did finally turn LTE on, but the signal is so spotty in north Valencia that it hasn't done me a lot of good. | |
|
| | | | |
en103
Member
2012-Nov-30 1:07 pm
Re: Tarnished NameIt should be soon on AT&T - I think they've swapped out panels at least at 1-5 Magic Mountain, and I know they have at I-5 Lyons (McDonald's parking lot site) as well as the I-5 Balboa, and I think I-5 Weldon Canyon. | |
|
| | | tubbynetreminds me of the danse russe MVM join:2008-01-16 Gilbert, AZ |
to en103
said by en103:I agree - make them work for their cudos. AT&T's HSPA+ LTE network in Santa Clarita is pretty fast (I've hit 14Mbps), and in general, my complaints are more with their PR than their network (throttlegate, Facetimegate). i've been very happy with att. i've had them since i bought my first iphone (3gs) almost four years ago. i've never had issues with their service. just got the new iphone5 and the lte in the greater phoenix metro area is fast. i've also never had a problem with customer service. while in rome last week -- my phone was stolen out of my pocket on the metro. i was able to vpn in to my office, make an ip phone call -- suspend my service and report my phone as stolen. i tried to order a new phone -- and there were some restrictions that my company has about that. the rep called the company contacts trying to reach someone to approve the "un-suspension" and ordering. when that didn't work, they tried again after the holiday and then called my gf's phone leaving a voicemail for next steps. i was quite pleased. q. | |
|
| | |
to djrobx
I think you missed the point, this is more about customer service, where AT&T ranks dead last.
I recently tried to purchase an iPhone from them and have had nothing but trouble. A month later, after I had enough and cancelled, I am still trying to sort out a billing issue - on their end.
Still waiting to waiting to be called back. I've spoken with over 15 people and spent hours trying to deal with them and I am a new customer.
As with Comcast, you need to make call after call, to try and get a rep who A) cares B) has a clue. | |
|
| | | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2012-Dec-3 2:15 pm
Re: Tarnished NameIf you don't get it resolved post over in direct... I can put a case in | |
|
| | algPassionately apathetic Premium Member join:2001-04-10 Houston, TX |
alg to djrobx
Premium Member
2012-Nov-30 4:14 pm
to djrobx
I don't really get all the grief that AT&T receives either. I travel pretty heavily in the United States and have always been satisfied with AT&T's service with the one exception of New York City where it really sucks. No customer service issues, either. | |
|
| | j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
to djrobx
said by djrobx:said by ssavoy:I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T. I completely agree. The #1 ranked Consumer Cellular rides on AT&T's network! AT&T really hasn't been that bad in my area and areas I travel to. I'm not at all impressed with Verizon (I have a prepaid account just for my iPad), but I keep them because they allow me to turn on the tether feature at the $30/month price point. If you look at the CR survey, Verizon didn't earn a single "Excellent" mark. Not even in the Data or 4G categories! Agreed. My opinion... overall, Verizon has a better reputation than they deserve, and AT&T has a worse reputation than they deserve. I can count many areas where AT&T works better than Verizon, even in places where Verizon has 850MHz Cellular spectrum and everyone else (including AT&T) has to deal with the limitations of 1900MHz PCS spectrum. I did get a good laugh at how far apart AT&T and Consumer Cellular are. The only place where they should be different is customer service and cost (and possibly overall value). Everything else is the same. This should ring serious alarm bells over how Consumer Reports is rating the services. | |
|
| evoxllx join:2007-06-07 Winter Park, FL |
to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T. Might be because of all the ridiculously shady things they pull off, one example below. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A | |
|
| ilikeme Premium Member join:2002-08-27 Stafford, TX |
to ssavoy
Thats what I am wondering. We have had them since 2000 when they were still Houston Cellular (owned by BellSouth Mobility) and have had no real big issues. The coverage is great around most of Texas, often better than Verizon. The speeds have improved over the past year or so. | |
|
| MoracCat god join:2001-08-30 Riverside, NJ |
to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T. When they do things like what they just recently did to my Aunt, it's no wonder perceptions are poor. My Aunt had AT&T POTS/DSL in Florida and she was having Internet problems (apparently because they simply disconnected her). They reconnected her, switched her to a slower speed and then started charging her more. Her Internet still didn't work. When she called them she was told she needed to switch to U-Verse for Internet. She was also told she needed to switch to the mobile shared plan on her iPhone (AT&T wireless). Now her Internet still doesn't work and she lost her POTS phone service which she didn't even realize they were disconnecting. They are blowing her off and skipping appointments as well. Overall, from both a service and customer support standpoint, they sound horrible in her area. Personally I never really had an issue with them though. | |
|
| | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2012-Dec-3 2:18 pm
Re: Tarnished NameIf your aunt doesn't get that fixed or solved let me know or post in direct
Thanks David | |
|
| DADDYJTL join:2012-12-01 Chicago Heights, IL |
to ssavoy
I have had AT&T for 9 years, I have had no problems at all. | |
|
| |
to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T. Considering the fact that the real AT&T was once the premier TelCom provider in the world, I'd say the current thing's placement at the bottom of the pile is purely a result of SBC tarnishing what was once a highly-respected name. Insomuch as one can "love" a telecommunications company , I used to love the real AT&T. The thing that calls itself "AT&T," these days, I avoid like the plague. Jim | |
|
| | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Tarnished Namesaid by jseymour:Considering the fact that the real AT&T was once the premier TelCom provider in the world, I'd say the current thing's placement at the bottom of the pile is purely a result of SBC tarnishing what was once a highly-respected name. I'd go so far as to suggest that things would have been better if AT&T had been allowed to die; but it appears that the financial dynamics of the wireless business prevented the possibility of that outcome. FWIW, former SBC CEO, Ed Whitacre, was hired by AT&T prior to the 1984 divestiture, and rose to CEO of Southwestern Bell Telephone, one of the seven post breakup RBOCs. He engineered the name change to, "SBC Global Communications". | |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC
1 recommendation |
iPhone competition makes all the carriers better...The fact that the iPhone is on Verizon, AT&T and Sprint means that they all have to compete against each other.
It's a shame that Apple didn't enable simultaneous voice/data on the models for Verizon/Sprint, but perhaps that's an incentive for those carriers to hurry up with Voice over LTE.
Hopefully this public shaming by Consumer Reports will get the beancounters at AT&T to hurry up the LTE build out... | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: iPhone competition makes all the carriers better...VoLTE isn't looking too promising yet. Current attempts drain the battery 50% faster than CDMA. Apple just needs to put in the same CDMA radio as Android phones, which allow voice/data even on 3G. | |
|
| | |
Re: iPhone competition makes all the carriers better...said by xenophon:VoLTE isn't looking too promising yet. Current attempts drain the battery 50% faster than CDMA. Apple just needs to put in the same CDMA radio as Android phones, which allow voice/data even on 3G. When VoLTE rolls out heavily they will magically have to remove the unlimited talk and put a minute cap once more upon it.. Watch and see if i'm wrong | |
|
| | | |
Re: iPhone competition makes all the carriers better...They'll just prioritize Voice on the LTE network and keep it unlimited. It's using the same amount of data on the LTE network as it would be on the legacy 3G and 2G networks. And with the freed up spectrum from users moving voice traffic from legacy networks to 4G networks the carriers will be able to allocate more spectrum to LTE. Voice traffic will use a very small amount of deployed LTE capacity on cellular networks in the US as mobile traffic is rapidly switching over to mobile data use and text messaging. | |
|
| | | |
King to decifal7
Anon
2012-Nov-30 10:26 pm
to decifal7
I suspect unlimited talk will be the norm because there will be no minutes to use. Your talk time will be converted to data...mark my word. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: iPhone competition makes all the carriers better...I doubt it.. It will be touted as high definition voice service! But with a time cap We will see.. I was right about the caps on internet usages for lte and even landlines that most was ignoring because "they had theirs".. But not everyones being effected and everyones at a hiss over it.. Personally, 3g speeds would work for me just fine if it was on a better frequency.. Voice as well.. My verizon Iphone drops way more than my trak phone (backup) running through the att network... Not to mention a much cheaper made phone.. Frequency makes a difference in places.. | |
|
| | |
to xenophon
said by xenophon:VoLTE isn't looking too promising yet. Current attempts drain the battery 50% faster than CDMA. Apple just needs to put in the same CDMA radio as Android phones, which allow voice/data even on 3G. Its not a CDMA radio it is missing but an LTE chip that allows data to flow through LTE and voice to travel over CDMA at the same time. Rumor is Samsung owns a lot of those patents for that LTE technology and Apple didn't want to pay for it. | |
|
| | | •••
|
| |
| | |
| |
to IPPlanMan
Re: iPhone competition makes all the carriers better...Apple has nothing to do with competition between carriers. You seem to have little to no understanding of how Simultaneous Voice and Data works on a CDMA network. You also probably have no understanding of how CDMA works in the slightest.
Simultaneous Voice and Data doesn't work on the Verizon/Sprint iPhones because it would require an extra CDMA Radio and antennas for 850 Cellular, 800 SMR and 1900 PCS. It's something Apple didn't want to put into their device because it would reduce battery life and cut into their ridiculous profit margin. | |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
T-Mobile...Here's hoping that T-Mobile gets the iPhone.... The more competition, the better... | |
|
| •••• |
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Which is why I switched back to VerizonI had Verizon from 2001 to 2004 (I carried a Verizon prepaid phone during my senior year in high school back in Iowa) and when I moved to Springfield (MA), I eventually switched to then Cingular (now AT&T) as Verizon's coverage in Springfield was spotty and unusable. Fast forward to 2011, AT&T was a sinking ship in quality so I abandoned ship when I had an iPhone 3GS that kept dropping calls. I now moved all my devices over to Verizon and they now have better coverage than AT&T in the same areas that they were unusable in 2004 (Eastfield mall was a notorious dead spot and RadioShack could not activate VZW devices in their store and they'd have to go outside to get a signal).
It puzzles me that Verizon has excellent coverage in a rural area like Iowa but an urban area like Springfield, MA had spotty coverage at the same time. | |
|
linicxCaveat Emptor Premium Member join:2002-12-03 United State |
linicx
Premium Member
2012-Nov-30 12:11 pm
It's nothing newMa Bell had terrible customer support in the early 90s when they first introduced "fast" Internet. Tech support was on Mars and did not understand basic American English. They could barely read from a script. The CD that shipped either fouled machines (wrong branded RAM), or included dead links to finish installation. Their pre-paid cellphone was worse that the paid version and it was terrible. I have not been anywhere near AT&T since then. From my point of view both AT&T and VZN have long histories of excuses, poor service and customer abuse. | |
|
|
How about some love . . .for US Cellular on here?
We think it's fine with our Android Galaxy S phone. BTW, US C turned down the IPhone last year...Said that it didn't make $ sense for them. | |
|
| IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
Re: How about some love . . .We'll see what happens with them in a bit... They might not get as good of a deal later on... | |
|
| j1349705 Premium Member join:2006-04-15 Holly Springs, NC |
to Bob61571
said by Bob61571:for US Cellular on here?
We think it's fine with our Android Galaxy S phone. BTW, US C turned down the IPhone last year...Said that it didn't make $ sense for them. You aren't going to hear a lot about them, since the majority of people in the country can't subscribe to them. US Cellular is very good in almost all of the markets that they serve, but they just don't cover that many people overall. That's why you hear about AT&T and Verizon the most, followed by Sprint and T-Mobile. These are the carriers that are available to the majority of the population. By the way, I have nothing against US Cellular and would like to see them expand. | |
|
|
Rich
Anon
2012-Nov-30 4:57 pm
farceNotice AT&T says simultaneous talk and surf. When you are on a call your speeds are now capped at 1mbps down and 25kbps up. At these low speeds you may be able to surf to a low graphics website, but forget about any meaningful internet access or apps such as Facebook. I no longer even try to use the internet while on a call. They snuck this cap in around last April. Galaxy S3, no LTE here yet. | |
|
| •••• |
|
I am a Consumer Reports subscriberAnd I respond every year I get the survey. While I'm a big fan of CR and all that they have done and continue to do for the consumer, I wonder if this report on cell phone providers is getting a bit stale. Same customers, same perception, year after year. Yeah, AT&T sucks - always have, always will. Why then, does AT&T continue to sell phones if they suck so bad? I hear complaints all the time. Many of these complaints seem to come from people with iphones on the older 3G network that have known issues. AT&T's LTE network is a big improvement over their older network. Lots of money has been spent building it out. Are things looking up for them? Maybe. Maybe it would have been best for AT&T not to have used the old name, but rather stuck with Cingular. Was brand recognition and customer satisfaction better for them when they were Cingular? | |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Nov-30 10:38 pm
Consumer Reports is cluelessI skimmed part of the article, as my parents get the dead-tree consumer reports. Utterly worthless. They didn't differentiate between Faux G and LTE at all for AT&T, so I don't know what they were talking about, and they lumped T-Mobile's Faux G right in there with the rest of them. A lot of the rest of the article was either awful, or "NO DUH" as well. One hilarious thing I noticed is they gave every smartphone one of the bottom two ratings for voice quality, which doesn't help a lot. They also had no explanation of how poor Verizon's voice quality is compared to AT&T, and the list goes on. It was obviously written for an unintelligent and/or technologically retarded audience. | |
|
DADDYJTL join:2012-12-01 Chicago Heights, IL |
AT&TI HAVE HAD AT&T FOR 9 YEARS, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS | |
|
| dra6o0n join:2011-08-15 Mississauga, ON |
Re: AT&TCan't tell if sarcastic, or just stupid.
The only thing I can say about AT&T is that it's FAT. Overweight grown man that is also obese and diabetic. | |
|
|
Ceraph
Anon
2012-Dec-2 8:58 pm
Is anyone surprised by this?The new AT&T is still SBC at its core. | |
|
|
|