Mobile Network Dispute Reaches The Nyah-Nyah-Nyah Stage
from the so-very-mature dept
If you recall, earlier this summer, Cingular and Sprint got into a bit of a spat over how each could describe their own network. All of the mobile operators like to come up with some twisted way of claiming that their network, and only their network, is "the best." Of course, they each use slightly different definitions to make sure they come out on top -- which is why no one believes them. When you have every company claiming to be the best, it's pretty clear that they're all pretty much full of it. In fact, it really only highlights just how many problems all of these networks have that they want to argue over whose is just slightly better. The fight between Cingular and Sprint (the others have wisely stayed out of it) reached ridiculous levels when Cingular took Sprint to court over the matter. It seems the Better Business Bureau had ruled on the issue, but the companies weren't allowed to talk about it publicly. So, Cingular went to court solely for the purpose of getting the BBB decision made public (yeah, that's mature). Eventually, the details came out and explained the fine line of what Cingular could and could not say about its network. So, is it any surprise that the two companies are right back at it? Apparently they're taking out full page newspaper ads that don't focus on the actual benefits to consumers, but on why the other company sucks. It's a pretty clear sign when competitors start trying to steal market share from each other, rather than grow the market, that they're not seeing the sort of market growth they were used to in the past. That's not a surprise, given the level of mobile phone penetration these days in the US. But, still, it seems like they could focus on more creative opportunities than sticking their tongues out at each other and tossing insults across newspapers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that one of the largest problems in our society? Next to the media they blowing every little thing up into an epidemic. We need to go back to only having the morning news and evening. No more ~24hr news networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First installed in the area == best service?
So, I switched to Verizon. Good coverage in the area with fewer drop outs. Good service after my phone's hinge cracked after 13 months. They replaced it for $50.
The CellCos may be quibbling about the coverage (Sprint's is swiss cheese in our area as they and Metro and Nextel were late in the game setting up towers). But, for me, it really comes down service and the least restrictive contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I ask real users...
Truth in advertising: "We don't suck quite as bad as ".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When I ask real users...
10 years ago, (yes just a short 10 years ago), you could barely get coverage out of your home area -- and if you could, it cost you $1.99 per MINUTE of talk time. And, less than 10% of the population actually could afford a cell phone.
Now, 10 years later, almost everybody and their kids have a cell-phone. (hell, even homeless people here in Chicago have their own phones). And we have all adjusted so quickly to this technology that we actually expect to be able to turn on our phones almost ANYWHERE in the world and be reachable with the same phone (and number) we use at home. Wow, how quickly things change... and yet, we keep raising our expectations faster than tech can deliver.
Of course none of this changes the fact that the carriers are underinvesting in their networks and overinvesting in marketing. The reality is that the biggest cost to carriers is the "churn" factor where they lose subscribers to a competitor. Every customer is usually subsidized when they initially sign up for a contract, (i.e. giving the new sub a phone for $49 that cost the carrier up to $200 wholesale from Motorola). In order to reduce this churn, carriers have added data capabilities to their networks which nobody really wants -- ALL WE WANT IS A DECENT NETWORK THAT LETS US MAKE PHONE CALLS!
PS -- Sprint sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
funny that this was settled by the BBB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coverage area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coverage area?
Which is exactly why providers build first in urban areas, then along interstates, then in rural areas.
If you were a company wouldn't you invest first where you would make your money back?
Or to put it a better way, if the companies invested in more areas that were less populated, they would have to charge so much we would still be paying $1.99 a minute.
As far as them making plans to build in your area, that's true. It makes sense, but you choose to live in an area like that so you take the trade off. If it bothers you that much, have some self responsibility and don't blame the company. I know how you feel. I was raised in SE Kentucky and they get everything there last. Guess what? I moved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coverage area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was an AT&T Wireless customer and experienced the changeover to Cingular. The first thing was that on the web, ATTWS customers were treated as second-class citizens. Our web-panel for managing the account never worked right or had full functionality. Then the signal got dramatically worse over time. An earlier poster said they were shutting down towers; interesting. All I know is that the signal went from full bars in most of the places I traveled down to two. I went into the Cingular store to see what phones they had and inquired about the Sony W800i. The store manager treated me like I was an idiot.
The final insult came when I received a letter from Cingular forcing me to purchase a new phone AND transition to a new, more expensive plan. Well, since I was being forced to a new phone and plan, I shopped around. Sprint gave me an awesome discount on the smartphone I selected, and even worked with me on my plan until I had exactly the minutes, features, and pricing that I had with the original ATTWS service!
Sprint's stores and phone-based customer service reps have been excellent, very professional. I also have enjoyed great connections for both voice and data. Their EVDO network usually runs at 600 kbps for me. Works fantastic with Orb and Avvenue, which lets me watch any live TV station and access any file on my PC, respectively. If the cable moden goes down I can even use my phone for broadband access. How sweet is that?
As a final pleasant surprise, I don't have perfect credit, yet I didn't have to put down a massive deposit with Sprint. Instead, they have a very sensible and consumer-friendly "spending limit" policy which simply limits how much the unpaid charges can be. (I would have to spend more than $125/month before the limit kicked in; my standard bill is less than $50/mo.)
As for Verizon, the identical plan would cost me more than $85/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sprint shakes down customers for its own mistakes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]