I'm getting HORRIBLE service with T-Mobile in Central NJ

[jimsimm1]

I have the motorola c332 and t-mobile service and more often than not, if I'm not on a highway, I get really poor connections, if any. I've called customer service and they say they'll have their technicians look into it, they'll say I'm in a great area and shouldn't be having a problem. Now they are mailing me a new handset to see if that will make a difference. They've even offered me 50 free minutes a month. Like THAT will do anything if I can't even USE the phone! I'm disgusted with the service, I've only had it for about 8 weeks. If there is anyway out of the contract, please let me know. Unless you have other options.

Jim

[NYCDru]

Originally posted by: jimsimm1
I have the motorola c332 and t-mobile service and more often than not, if I'm not on a highway, I get really poor connections, if any. I've called customer service and they say they'll have their technicians look into it, they'll say I'm in a great area and shouldn't be having a problem. Now they are mailing me a new handset to see if that will make a difference. They've even offered me 50 free minutes a month. Like THAT will do anything if I can't even USE the phone! I'm disgusted with the service, I've only had it for about 8 weeks. If there is anyway out of the contract, please let me know. Unless you have other options. Jim

Try a Samsug r225 or a motrola p280 in your area. If those phones can't get signal there then nothing can.

[herbrock17]

or compare verizon with your t-mobile service with their 15 day "worry free guarantee"...where in central jersey are you?? my friend loves his vx10 (swithced from cingular nokia 3360 tdma)...he lives in marlboro works in manalapan, goes to school in union...peace all

[NYCDru]

Originally posted by: herbrock17
or compare verizon with your t-mobile service with their 15 day "worry free guarantee"...where in central jersey are you?? my friend loves his vx10 (swithced from cingular nokia 3360 tdma)...he lives in marlboro works in manalapan, goes to school in union...peace all

Yeah he could do that too.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] I love my vx10.

[Ignaurus13]

Jim,
I have the same problem with TMobile in a section of Woodbridge, NJ. ATT GSM works perfectly in the area in question, but not TMobile nor Cingular GSM (for the obvious reason that they are using the same towers). TMobile has not been able to solve the problem and I have been complaining for a year. My guess is if they feel that they have great coverage, they will not do much to address the small holes. Your GSM alternative might be ATT but they are a young GSM network with a horrible National footprint. I am sticking with TMobile for now since I need GSM and they may be the best GSM provider in the country.....even if they stink near my home. Oh Well! I'm holding out to see if ATT and TMobile merge (yes I know...its all rumors). Then maybe I can ride ATT towers with my TMobile number at home and enjoy the TMobile National coverage when I am away....Wishful Thinking [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Another Jim

[bobolito]

Why would you worry more about the carrier's national network size and not about how they work where you need it? The same issues occur here in my area where I would be using T-Mobile/Cingular GSM if I had them. Barely any signal at home and no signal at work. Basically useless for me. Cingular GSM would only be of some use for me if I had a GAIT phone. Then again I would be roaming on TDMA most of the time and GSM phone would be useless to me on the T-Mobile/Cingular network. AT&T GSM works much better for my needs. But I am afraid of AT&T and their bossy policies.

It seems to me some carriers (especially PCS carriers) empasize on having the largest network rather than quality coverage. Maybe they are just rushing to fill up all their licenses so that FCC won't take them away. But them getting local spotless coverage becomes a low priority item for them.

[giambotic]

I recently had t-Mobile and it took me a couple moths of complaining but they did eventually let me out of my contract. I do live in Upstate NY and service here is exactly as you described. I faxed their customer service (maybe retention) twice. The first time they insisted that it was a contract and the lawyers could not under any circumstances let me cancel without penalty. They offered me a free month. Then the second time I used the email CS function on their website. A lady again called me back (almost two weeks later) and insisted again she could not terminate w/o penalty but offered to exchange phones for no charge. I accepted that and was willing to try. In the meantime I had faxed again due to their slow response, and the day after the lady called to exchange the phones another woman called and notified me that my account would be terminated at the end of the billing cycle. I dunno if I am allowed to post the fax number here but if a Mod gives me the okay I would be glad to.

Anyway long story short be pesistent, detailed and truthful and I think you will make out okay eventually.

[cll]

TMobile seems to be the "hot" service in Central NJ. Except for Manalapan they have complete coverage in Monmouth County.(In the Atlantic Highlands I think Tmo is the only service that works) Many people Ive spoken to who are going for a new phone or first timers seem to like Tmo. Maybe its the power of a prominent ad campaign. Or good prices for service. Even though I dont think their rates are any better than anyone else.

[Matt]

Originally posted by: bobolito
It seems to me some carriers (especially PCS carriers) empasize on having the largest network rather than quality coverage. Maybe they are just rushing to fill up all their licenses so that FCC won't take them away. But them getting local spotless coverage becomes a low priority item for them.

First, TM has the smallest network of the national players (well, maybe bigger than Cingular's native network but they have extensive TDMA roaming agreements, and TM is still bigger than AT&T GSM) The difference is the incumbent RBOC carriers have had cellular networks of some sort for 10-15+ years already, and the PCS carriers are only at about 6-7 years. PCS carriers are still filling mid and (up to last year major) markets with their initial service offerings.

Specifically WRT T-Mobile, the Omnipoint networks they inherited frankly were horrible. Coverage was minimal at best b/c they were near bankruptcy. TM (well VS at the time) preferred to buy Aerial first since their networks and coverage were much better, but they had to move on OMPT first so no one else would. Here in DC the Sprint Spectrum GSM network was decent to begin with, but I've still been able to trackabout 5 infill towers begin added per year in my area (this doesn't include add-on panels to existing sites since the Gov't approval process is different.)

[njsvrzncdma]

cingulars gsm service is average at the moment but expect it to go full force by end of 2003

[bobolito]

See that's exactly what I mean, T-Mobile will grow and launch new markets to expand nationally more quickly than enhancing local coverage quality. They are almost as large as Sprint for what their national maps show so in no doubt they are in the race with Sprint for the largest network. AT&T GSM is smaller at the national level. However, in many markets, many people are reporting they are already having better indoor penetration than T-Mobile and this is not because they already had an 800Mhz footprint. AT&T had to install many new towers for GSM being that it is PCS. AT&T GSM started as being spotty but now they have improved local coverage and indoor penetration very quickly showing that they emphasize quality rather than quantity. It only took them a couple of years to accomplish this. They also have many TDMA PCS markets that are as old as T-Mobile and Sprint networks and coverage quality on AT&T is always superior. But then, maybe the reason for this is because AT&T has to deal with a smaller network than T-mobile and Sprint. I am just going by what I perceive.

[Matt]

AT&T smaller network? I doubt it.

TM to some extent has no choice. Many markets (and all those little dots you see on the map) are required service so they don't lose their license. The Virginia buildout, for example, was up against the wall last year - it got turned on the week of the deadline.

If you ask Larry, he'll say Sprint has 260 million covered POPs. TM is around 210.

AT&T had to install many new towers for GSM being that it is PCS.

Why would converting 1900 TDMA --> 1900 GSM requirenew towers? Coverage is the same. AT&T has the luxury of already having a national TDMA/analog network (much of which is 800), or roaming agreements that make it appear as such to the user. TM doesn't have that same level of coverage.

I'm not making excuses, but you are suggesting that TM isn't interested in improving the density/quality of the coverage they have. That isn't true, but some of their focus is taken away by license requirements.

[njsvrzncdma]

i believe he was referring to at&t 's gsm ntework. their gsm network is in fact smaller than everyone elses

[Matt]

yeah, you are right. thanks.

[bobolito]

Well, Matt, for what I read, we are both just saying the same thing in different ways [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]. Maybe I am not making myself clear. When you say "Many markets (and all those little dots you see on the map) are required service so they don't lose their license. The Virginia buildout, for example, was up against the wall last year" is just an example of my statement that they are just rushing to fill up all their licenses so that FCC won't take them away. Also, when you say, "but some of their focus is taken away by license requirements" is just another way of saying what I said that getting local spotless coverage becomes a low priority item for them. I am not by any means suggesting that they don't care. What I am saying is that they haven't done it and their network's young age is not the reason.

About AT&T, I was referring to their 800/1900Mhz markets where TDMA is at 800 and GSM at 1900. They had to add many new towers to make GSM reliable and they have accomplished this in a very short time. Their original TDMA 1900Mhz networks are about the same age (if not younger) than T-Mobile's GSM networks and AT&T has achieved better coverage in the same amount of time. It seems to me they are ensuring their newly built GSM markets have good coverage before growing it out. But then, it may be that AT&T has more money and they can accomplish these things quicker than T-mobile. Also, as you said, T-Mobile is running against the clock so their non-covered POPs don't get pulled by the FCC.

But I thought Sprint was around 230M covered pops and TMo around 220M. But then I am not good keeping up with those numbers so I guess I was wrong about AT&T. After looking around on the web, I saw that Sprint and AT&T have about 270M licensed POPs, T-Mobile 220M at the end of 2002. I couldn't find the number of covered POPs. Maybe you can help me with those.

Now, network size is more accurately determined in terms of covered POPs rather than licensed POPs. But then again, POPs count can be misleading because if my network just covers highly populated metro areas and your network only covers large low populated areas you'll probably have a larger network than me in terms of number of towers because you have more land to cover, even though your POPs count may be lower than mine.

[Matt]

covered pops from memory as of 3Q 2002 (4Q numbers aren't out yet since annual reports aren't due to be filed until 3/15/03

AT&T GSM 175
TM 210
Sprint 230 or 260 with affiliates

TM has licensed pops to 96 or 97% of the population, so that's aound 275M

I agree AT&T GSM has come online well. They've done a good job. They have focused on urban areas and not the connecting highways (nationwide) since they have alternate coverage to offer their customers (TDMA, s46, etc). I don't know how much AT&T is spending on capital expenses, it will be easier to wait a few weeks until the annual reports are filed for all companies - it will make comparisons easier. TM, IIRC, spent about 3-3.5B in 2002, but I could be wrong.

If you look at reports of holes in TM coverage nationwide, I think you'll find that in general most of the big complaints are in CA (where Cingular built the network) or in an Omnipoint area. I was always impressed by the initial coverage maps of VS builds (Dallas, Chicago, St Louis for example in 2000 or 2001) and the Aerial markets always looked good on the maps too (Houston, Columbus, Pittsburgh). Powertel covered Atlanta well, but other cities were weaker. But to their credit they had a lot of highway coverage.

[Airb330]

Omnipoint buildout was horrible. And of course I am in one of those markets. Delaware! They need to fill in some southern coverage, and my town. My area is a hole for some reason, considering there are 3 towers to choose from to build on, a Delaware-state owned tower (Verizon, SPCS,etc.), Cingular tower, and a someone else tower with Sprint, Verizon, and somebody else. No excuses for my area! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

[ZaphodB]

Originally posted by: Ignaurus13
Jim,
I have the same problem with TMobile in a section of Woodbridge, NJ. ATT GSM works perfectly in the area in question, but not TMobile nor Cingular GSM (for the obvious reason that they are using the same towers). TMobile has not been able to solve the problem and I have been complaining for a year. My guess is if they feel that they have great coverage, they will not do much to address the small holes. Your GSM alternative might be ATT but they are a young GSM network with a horrible National footprint. I am sticking with TMobile for now since I need GSM and they may be the best GSM provider in the country.....even if they stink near my home. Oh Well! I'm holding out to see if ATT and TMobile merge (yes I know...its all rumors). Then maybe I can ride ATT towers with my TMobile number at home and enjoy the TMobile National coverage when I am away....Wishful Thinking [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Another Jim

Jim,

I must have been in a different part of Woodbridge & environs, then... I had OK reception in the House of ZaphMom, and reasonable coverage most everywhere else. Two very odd exceptions - in Smith St. in the centre of downtown Perth Amboy, and on the bottom floor of the Menlo Park Mall.

Now, southern Middlesex county was a different story. Got off the Turnpike at 8A and that was the last of my T-Mo coverage. No coverage at all in Monroe amongst the elderly, no coverage at all in Helmetta, spotty-at-best coverage in Jamesburg and Spotswood. Large chunks of Parlin were dead.

[bobolito]

The best thing that happened to Powerpoint was that they were bought by Voicestream, now T-Mobile.

[cll]

NOBODY has good coverage in that Jamesburg/Spotswood area. I dont know if its a NIMBY town or what the reason is.

[bobolito]

It's because nobody lives there, so there's nothing to cover except the Turnpike [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[zeeker]

I live in Central Jersey and there coverage is OK. I encounter the occasional dead spot (called, complained, additional 200mins), T-moble has done right by me. I live in Laurence Harbor and travel all around Woodbridge, Avenel, Sayerville, Matawan, Freehold, up and down 34, 35, 36, 1&9, GSPW, NJTP, and am happy with the service. For the plan that T-Mo offers (which I believe is the best bang for the buck) I can live with an occasional dropped call or dead spot.

Now if you MUST have COMPLETE coverage, I suggest you develope long arms and short pockets and go with Verizon.
I'm going to have a new born and I just might switch because it's imperative that I have the best possible coverage (I'll sacrifice voice quality, GSM is the hands down winner if you ask me) so if an emergency pops up I can be reached, or place the call.

[CaptKanga]

Part of the present problem with T-Mobile is that they are owned by Deutsche Telekom. Deutsche is highly levered (lots of debt), and doesn't have that much avaliable liquidity to enable T-Moble the capital to improve the network at the pace competitors (such as ATT) are building. So, basically, they are starved of capital from their parent company. Thats why over the past year or more, T-Mobile has been spending only 20-30% on capex as its competitors.

[Matt]

Kanga,

Please post some facts to back you your capex statements. You made the claim, please back it up with links to numbers from TM and its competitors.

The money DT spends to fund TM is not on the same scale as its debt. A couple billion on capex doesn't compare to 64billion in debt.

[NYCDru]

Originally posted by: Matt
Kanga, Please post some facts to back you your capex statements. You made the claim, please back it up with links to numbers from TM and its competitors. The money DT spends to fund TM is not on the same scale as its debt. A couple billion on capex doesn't compare to 64billion in debt.

How much of that 64 billion is long term anyway?

[Matt]

What's your definition of long term? Nothing significant is due over the next few years.....You'd have to look at their financial reports. Might be better to wait until the 10th when DT releases their 2002 annual results.

[bobolito]

As Matt and I were discussing recently, what's going on with T-Mobile is that they have to focus on lauching coverage in their non-covered licensed areas. I believe lots of their funding most be devoted to expansion and not to enhance already launched markets. NY/NJ is a market inherited from the Omnipoint network which wasn't doing well financially and did not have a good network to begin with. T-Mobile is now patching the old weak Omnipoint network.

[CaptKanga]

Originally posted by: Matt
Kanga,

Please post some facts to back you your capex statements. You made the claim, please back it up with links to numbers from TM and its competitors.

The money DT spends to fund TM is not on the same scale as its debt. A couple billion on capex doesn't compare to 64billion in debt.

To be honest, I don't have time to give you those numbers, which are publically available. But, I will give you some insight into the lack of financial flexiblity of Deutsche, and why a "couple billion" does impact DT.
On January 10th, Moody's downgraded DT's debt to Baa3 (which is the lowest investment grade rating). In that rating opinion, Moody's stated:
"The rating actions are based on our view that the financial risk will remain high for DT because of uncertainties surrounding their plans to reduce debt and because of the ongoing cash funding requierements of its 100%-owned subsidiary, VoiceStream. This concludes the rating review process initiated on 18 November 2002. The rating downgrades reflect Moody's view that DT will probably not be able to reduce its net debt to around EUR50 billion by year-end 2003, contrary to previous expectations. Moody's considers it feasible that DT's commitment to VoiceStream could weaken in the future if VoiceStream does not become free-cash-flow-positive by 2005. While acknowledging that DT regards VoiceStream as a core business, Moody's nevertheless believes that VoiceStream is creating additional financial stresses for DT, which itself remains a highly leveraged company. Furthermore, Moody's considers a change in ownership to be possible, given the expectation of consolidation in the US wireless market, but does not expect such in the immediate future."

Bottom line: DT is skating on the edge of thin ice if it wants to fund T-Mobile (in the US) to the capital expenditure levels of its competitors, which range around $3 to $5 billion, and keep its investment grade rating.

[Matt]

I know the numbers are available, and I've read them. I was hoping you'd post them. I looked at the 2002 9 month numbers, and it's eeasy to see that AT&T, Cingular and Verizon all spend more. In AT&T and Cingular's case, it's an easy exaplanation. Both of them are buildin an entirely new network in a 2 year period, so of course the will have significant costs that TM doesn't have. Also, Cingular must pay $450 million (I think that's the right number) in 2002 for the CN/NV network sharing agreement. Verizon's network is much larger - hundreds of towers larger I'd guess due to the analog portion of their network.

Credit rating discussions are not new. Those issues have been around for a long time, and actually are getting better rather than worse for TM USA, since TM will turn a profit most likely in 2003 1Q or 2Q. Since the of Moody's post, DT raised $5B in the capital markets.

[CaptKanga]

I think your assessment of DT and corresponding T-Mobile is optimistic.
I am not saying T-Mobile is going away at all. What I am saying is that they have been relatively starved of capital from T-Moble AG aka DT due to the company's stated goal of reducing debt to 50 billion Euro's by end of 2003 - all, in part, a response to the company's high leverage for its rating and the corresponding ratings pressure. In regards to this pressure for DT, it is a new thing. Up until a few years ago DT was a solid investment grade credit. DT like other Euro Telcos went on a buying spree (particularly 3G licenses) and is now in a pickle in its attempt to sell off non-core businesses to reduce debt. Over the past year or so,this has unquestionably resulted in T-Mobile losing out on capital that it could have used to build out new markets and improve the fill out of existing footprints.

The fact that DT issued 5 billion in debt recently is not an indication that this isn't an issue. Also, for the record, I am not sure of what issuance you are referring to. I know on Feb. 19, Deutsche Telekom AG issued 2.3 billion euros in mandatory convertible bonds. As a footnote, Deutsche Telekom's stock fell 8% after the issue and has continued downward to be just over $10 today.