Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 02 Apr 2008 06:07:54 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>>> I disagree. Their network hasn't become worse in the last few years,
> and
>>> their handset selection has always been lackluster. Why has that
> suddenly
>>> caused churn to increase?
>> It's not that their network has become worse, it's that other networks
>> have improved more, and consumers have become more aware of
>> the differences between networks as a result of independent surveys
>> of coverage.
>
> Then explain T-Mo's success? They have a worse network than Sprint, a piss-
> poor handset selection, and they're not bleeding customers.

T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those
that are concerned about coverage.

They offer a lot more peak minutes/$, they have a very low cost texting
plan (400 texts for $5), and they market heavily to young people with
some unique handsets. They're not a full service wireless provider
either, eschewing the cost of building a 3G network because they didn't
believe they could compete in that market.

Also, T-Mobile has historically low profit margins in the U.S., despite
having a high ARPU.

> Most consumers (including myself) won't care if it has WiFi as long as they
> have a reasonably-priced unlimited 3G plan.

I think you're wrong about most customers. The problem with Sprint 3G is
that you can't roam onto Verizon 3G. You can't use your device as a web
access device when you're in a place with WiFi but no 3G coverage,
including nearly everywhere outside the U.S.. Look at why the iPhone is
being unlocked and sold in countries where it has no official carrier.
It's because it's a web access device, as well as a phone and music player.

> WiFi- YOU have a skewed perspective because you like in an area with fairly
> ubiquitous WiFi and see no need for a cellular data plan.

Actually I'd love a cellular data plan. While I know where to go to get
WiFi, it's not really ubiquitous in the sense that every place you visit
has it, and lately it seems that more individuals are being smart enough
to secure their personal networks.

Everywhere isn't
> the Bay Area, my friend! In the majority of the country, you either need
> to park in the suburbs like a soccer mom stalker, or develop a taste for
> overpriced coffee to find any WiFi. Most of the time you'll be using
> cellular data.

Yes, that's why you need to sign up with a cellular data provider that
has more coverage than Sprint.

Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live in
Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that their
California coverage, north and south, is much worse than other carriers,
which has also been the experience of every Sprint customer in
California that I know personally. Of course these customers didn't know
enough to force their handsets to roam onto Verizon, assuming their
handsets had the capability.