x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Options
    Close




T-Mobile CEO John Legere learns meaning of Instant Karma

0. phoneArena 07 Jun 2014, 00:25 posted on

T-Mobile CEO John Legere has had it in for AT&T for some time. At CES 2013, he called the AT&T network "crap". So when the Air Conditioning failed during Game One of the NBA Finals at the AT&T Center in San Antonio, Legere quickly hit his Twitter account. "It's bad enough when you can't power a network, but now you can't power the AC during the finals?!?!"...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 00:36 23

1. Duketytz (Posts: 328; Member since: 28 Nov 2013)


Maybe a little bit too extreme but we got to admit he's a good CEO!

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 03:47 2

6. WakaFlakaD (Posts: 360; Member since: 30 Apr 2011)


He's very consumer-oriented. He acts like he's the People's Champ!

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 16:01

55. corporateJP (Posts: 1520; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)


I've always said I appreciate his "man of the people" attitude and his consumer friendliness, but I've also always said his network can't hold a candle to AT&T.

I still stand behind that ideology.

Where I live, as stated for some time, T-Mobile is still EDGE and you are lucky to get a voice call through.

Let's get on the horse here, John. You want to walk the walk and talk the talk, but your network is still in the Stone Age in a lot of places across the United States.

That's all I've got...

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:32 1

42. RoundhouseMcGee (Posts: 165; Member since: 25 May 2014)


Um no. He's a terrible CEO he's running the company into the ground. Doesn't matter how many people they sucker into their horrid service, they are losing money and the current business model is not sustainable. How do you people not get this?

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 22:55

63. dorian827 (Posts: 123; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)


Definitely a great CEO handling operations perfectly and proposing and delivering unlike Sprint.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 01:00 16

2. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


I've said it before and I'll say it again, Legere is an example of big bark, little bite. I've had T-Mobile, and while AT&T isn't perfect, it utterly destroys T-Mobile in terms of coverage, especially data coverage. Not to mention AT&T isn't the carrier with the history of repeatedly getting sued and/or otherwise legally reprimanded over its misleading advertising.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 07:38 17

12. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Little bite? Lol since he came in, T-Mobile has had a record number of growth in subscribers. Plus they're working to improve their network.

It all depends on what area you're in.

Don't be ignorant.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 08:48 4

15. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


I've been in two areas, one rural, one metropolitan, where I've had T-Mobile. Service was inferior both times.

CUSTOMER service used to be great, but then again, I haven't dealt much with their phone support since 2010.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 10:08 9

22. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


So in other words you're going by with what you experienced FOUR years ago?

And you call me out about comments I make on Motorola.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 12:36 1

27. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


Well, let's see, Shirley, I just checked the first area I lived in with T-Mobile, and I discovered that oh, look at that, it's still 2G coverage only in the (big) town I lived in and my parent's house out in the country is still covered by AT&T but not T-Mobile at all.

Now, they do have LTE (finally) in the second area in which I now live, which is pretty metropolitan, but out in the rural area where my friends' cabin is they still don't have anywhere close to the coverage that AT&T has out there. They claim they have signal where I know they didn't have signal 3 years ago, but then again, they claimed they had signal back then too.

So while yes, I haven't possessed a T-Mobile phone since 2011, it seems that my assessment of their coverage is still pretty damn accurate.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 12:54

30. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


You "checked" the area but how on earth would you know without actually having a phone in the area? Do enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.

AT&T is a larger company. While it's true they don't have the coverage as AT&T they still have wifi calling which AT&T doesn't. AT&T isn't exempt from having issues with their network, as you plainly see above. T-Mobile's improving their network, shutting down 2G and converting it to LTE.

Your assessment is based upon an outdated and slightly biased outlook. I'd say it's about as accurate as a blind man having target practice.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 12:58 1

31. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


"You "checked" the area but how on earth would you know without actually having a phone in the area?"

Oh, I'm sorry, do coverage maps somehow DOWNPLAY their estimates nowadays compared to reality? Because that seems to be the exact opposite of how coverage maps have worked forever.

And just so you know, out in the country there's no such thing as Wifi calling because there's no such thing as good landline internet without paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for it.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:05

33. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


"Oh, I'm sorry, do coverage maps somehow DOWNPLAY their estimates nowadays compared to reality? Because that seems to be the exact opposite of how coverage maps have worked forever."

I'm not asking about the coverage maps. I'm asking about your recent experience, or lack of from the looks of it. There's a reason people suggest using apps like Sensorly.

"And just so you know, out in the country there's no such thing as Wifi calling because there's no such thing as good landline internet without paying thousands upon thousands of dollars for it."

How does that change anything? It's an option, an option that AT&T doesn't have. Obviously there's some drawbacks but can AT&T say they have it? I'm speaking in general anyhow.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:08

37. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


It doesn't matter if the option exists, because it doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the argument I'm making that T-Mobile's network is weak, especially in rural areas (which is often where cell coverage is needed most).

And unless you're prepared to say that coverage maps show worse coverage than real life, then the coverage maps for Corning, NY and the area southeast of Howard, NY should be all the evidence I need to show that T-Mobile's coverage for either area hasn't changed in 4 years.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:42

44. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Why doesn't it matter Sniggly? Is it because AT&T doesn't have it and you're hilariously trying to dig yourself out the hole? That's the whole point of Wifi calling. To be able to call when reception is weak. Like I said there's drawbacks like actually having access to wifi. Not all rural areas are in the middle of nowhere.

No I'm prepared to say that coverage maps aren't always an indicator of real world coverage. I'll ask you again how would you know if the coverage was bad if you don't have T-Mobile service yourself in that area?

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 18:46 1

60. Slammer (Posts: 939; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)


Maybe Sniggly can't give an honest fact due to lack of actual personal experience. I can however. I recently test drove Tmobile due to my contract ending through my carrier. I signed on to give it a try. City comparison proved pretty equal on most accounts. Usual strengths for one carrier and then the other. This is normal due to tower placement. One tower maybe closer than the competitor's and visa versa. The problem became more evident when traveling outside the city. I actually rooted for T-Mobile when it had better reception than my Sprint device. It all ended when Tmobile failed to latch onto a roaming signal while Sprint still had native coverage. While down at a lake, I couldn't make a phone call with the Tmobile phone 9 miles from destination. Lost all signal from there on. I had to revert back to the Sprint phone once again. Signal was only 2 bars but I was able to make a call. The other noticeable difference is voice quality. The Sprint voice calls were far more pleasant to the ear. Not tinny or noisy. Even surpassing verizon voice quality.

I really liked Tmobile around city limits. But I also found other carriers just as good. I don't need massive coverage from the likes of VZW and AT&T. But, I do need more than Tmobile could offer. Sprint is the baby bear of the Goldilocks story for me. Like it or not, Tmobile has a fast talker that lacks a more paunchy network.

In short, the media is giving tmobile a lot of sizzle, but, T-Mobile doesn't have the steak.......yet. Even with all the spectrum tmobile acquired through auctions, how is it going to build the infrastructure outside of what it covers now? It needs serious cash to do it. DT isn't going to fund it. That leaves who ever purchases it to do it.

John B.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 21:58 2

61. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


That's a good point. They're trying but they can only do so much when the parent company refuses to have anything to do with them. It's a shame since the potential is there.

It's like I said before it depends on your area. The only real indicators of coverage is user experience.

I only called Sniggly out because he was using some outdated overviews about T-Mobile.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 11:26 1

68. Slammer (Posts: 939; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)


Maps are generally laid out to show coverage in optimal conditions. They aren't accurate. Atmospheric and environmental conditions can affect signal regardless of carrier and most times, the optimal conditions are never truly met. I've had every carrier and not one has been accurate in actual coverage.

So, in essense, you are correct in claiming user experience is key to accuracy. But, Sniggly is equally correct when he claims Tmobile's coverage hasn't really improved since he left. My area has not experienced a change in Tmobile's demographical coverage since I tried it 5 years ago. That's why it bothers me when people cheerlead so highly for Tmobile. Locally in city limits, Tmobile is a great choice. But the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Venturing outside these limits shows the true vulnerability. In spite of hatred toward Sprint, its coverage surpasses Tmobile by quite a margin.

John B.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 12:05

69. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


I will be the first one to agree that coverage maps can be inaccurate, but coverage is almost never better than what the map shows, and is almost always worse.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 12:43 1

71. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Again that's why apps like sensorly exist.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:07 2

35. Shatter (Posts: 1970; Member since: 29 May 2013)


Their coverage map is wrong, it is a lot better than they make it look. It says I only get 2G at my house and I have been getting 5 bars of LTE for months.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:38 1

43. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Lol that's what I'm trying to drill through his head. A lot of times they don't often upgrade the coverage map right off the bat. That's why I said user experience is far better indicator. That's why I mentioned Sensorly up above.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:43

45. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


So you're saying that T-Mobile hasn't updated their coverage map in four years?

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:47 1

47. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


No, I'm saying you're grasping at straws now. I don't know what the coverage map looked like 4 years ago. All I have is your word for that. As you can see that's not very reliable.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 15:27 1

52. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Looks like I just got the better of Sniggly.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 15:43

54. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


I like how you assume a lack of response for a few hours means you "got the better of" me.

Of course, you're doing the whole God argument: "well, you can't prove that 4G doesn't exist in an area where T-Mobile only advertises 2G service and has for four years, so I'm going to assume that 4G service exists."

No, I can't actually prove that if you take a T-Mobile phone into that area you won't get 4G service, because that would take hundreds of dollars, hundreds of miles, and several days off from work, none of which I can afford right now. Even if I could afford it, proving you wrong would not be worth that much to me.

The coverage maps are the best evidence I can offer right now, and I can't for the life of me fathom why T-Mobile WOULDN'T update their coverage map for the area if they really offer anything more than EDGE service there. If that's not good enough for you (even though you would for damn sure use those maps if they supported your conclusion) then there's nothing else to say.

Go ahead, do your victory dance if you feel like making a currently unfalsifiable claim is a victory.

And by the way, saying that Wifi Calling is a valid counterargument to T-Mobile's poor coverage in rural areas where good landline internet doesn't exist is just....dumb.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 22:02 1

62. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Sure Sniggly. Whatever floats your boat. I'll stop by Lowe's tomorrow to get a shovel so you can dig your way out that hole.

"And by the way, saying that Wifi Calling is a valid counterargument to T-Mobile's poor coverage in rural areas where good landline internet doesn't exist is just....dumb."

And saying T-Mobile's network is bad while giving praise to AT&T even though their network has been known to go bad when there's a lot of traffic on it is just...dumb. I'm not saying it as a counterargument to T-Mobile's rural coverage, to btw you're still inaccurately assuming all rural areas don't have some form of internet pipeline. I'm saying it's an option. At least they have a fallback on whereas if AT&T's network failed, you're sold out.

"Go ahead, do your victory dance if you feel like making a currently unfalsifiable claim is a victory."

You're the one who dug yourself into the hole.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 00:09

64. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


I wasn't passing comment on AT&T's reliability where they are supposed to have coverage. I was passing comment on AT&T's coverage overall versus T-Mobile's coverage overall, especially when it comes to rural areas.

And I'm not inaccurately assuming that Internet pipelines don't exist. In rural towns Internet definitely exists, but out in the actual country, like farmlands and woods, broadband internet simply doesn't exist. The fastest you can hope for comes from satellite (which is awful in comparison to cable internet) or *gasp!* cellular coverage, which of course has hideously low data caps. Hell, the whole reason why Google is trying things like Project Loon is to get reliable, fast internet out to areas which don't have it.

The only people who have broadband Internet out in the areas I'm describing are those who literally pay the provider thousands upon thousands of dollars to lay the cable out to them, because that's what it costs for the provider to do so, and there's a super low return on that investment otherwise.

I understand the benefits of Wifi calling where it works; however, in the context of the discussion we've been having (re: the overall coverage comparison between T-Mobile and AT&T) it is entirely irrelevant.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 12:47 1

73. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


You were incorrectly assuming that all rural areas didn't have landline internet which was not the case.

It's funny how you continue to dig yourself into the hole further and further and you don't want to admit that you've been proven wrong.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 10:48

66. jmonteiro829 (Posts: 45; Member since: 13 Feb 2012)


They are working on their network.... it takes time. AT&T didn't come out of the gate with coverage in every city in the US. Plus they also offer WIFI calling which is awesome when you don't have coverage in the sticks!

To bash them for having bad coverage years ago is not fair since they made great strides in getting better coverage in the most populated areas.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 12:07

70. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


Pay attention, newbie. Wifi calling is usually irrelevant "in the sticks" because broadband Internet is practically nonexistent out there in addition to T-Mobile's coverage being nonexistent.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 12:45

72. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Lmao he resorted to calling you newbie just because he has no real reason to say why T-Mobile WiFi calling isn't relevant here

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 13:01

74. Sniggly (Posts: 6697; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)


Um, I have stated the real reason why WiFi calling is irrelevant, and it's because for the most part the critical element required for WiFi calling doesn't exist in the sticks. Holy crap, how do you not get this?

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 15:56

75. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


How can someone be incredibly dense

Again I acknowledge that as a setback. You claim it's irrelevant just because T-Mobile doesn't have service in the woods or in the middle of nowhere. That can be said for any carrier.

Big key is location.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 09:06 1

16. donfem (Posts: 515; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


Never ever thought I will give your comment a thumb up. I just did.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:05 1

34. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Because I am right.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 12:38

28. JunitoNH (Posts: 839; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)


Don't matter how you slice it, T-Mobile network is crap. I'm basing it on past and current services. Moreover, the numbers don't lie, there's a reason the company is in last place.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 12:59

32. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Verizon network has gone down many times before. Sprint's network is the epitome of garbage.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:08 1

36. Shatter (Posts: 1970; Member since: 29 May 2013)


Sprint should be in 4th place, the only thing keeping them in 3rd is all those company/government contracts.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:31

41. RoundhouseMcGee (Posts: 165; Member since: 25 May 2014)


Um what?! That's great and all but last quarter they LOST $151 million. They can add all the subscribers they want, fact is they are hemmoraghing money, and last I checked the point of a business is to make money.
Pretty sad you needed that pointed out and explained.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:45

46. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


I never said a business point wasn't to make money. Would you rather them do lose more money while subscribers leave at rapid pace or take risk by changing things up while losing money at the start?

Don't forget they're investing money to upgrade their network.

Business isn't always cut and dry.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 14:21

50. RoundhouseMcGee (Posts: 165; Member since: 25 May 2014)


My mistake, it was implied. You know, when you left out the part where they LOST $151m last quarter. Funny how TMO fans and CEOs like to ignore that part.
I get that you don't understand...well, muchbof anything, but come on, do you really need it explained again how losing money is bad for business? Actually don't answer, we all know your response.

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 10:50

67. jmonteiro829 (Posts: 45; Member since: 13 Feb 2012)


Just remember.... if the company goes under we are not on contract when we see the ship starting to sink... I can just switch to AT&T if I want with my current phone.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 08:31

14. youlookfoolish (Posts: 115; Member since: 14 Dec 2012)


T-Mobile is CRAP!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! I DONT WANT SPRINT TO BUY THEM AND BE RUINED!!! OMG!!!! THIS CAN'T HAPPEN!!!

THEIR NETWORK DROPS ALL OF THE TIME AND IS TERRIBLE! THEY HAVE THE SMALLEST COVERAGE EVER!!!! IF SPRINT BUYS THEM I AM GOING STRAIGHT TO VERIZON!!!!!!

- What every T-Mobile fan sounds like, but applied to this situation. (LOL)

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 14:07

49. wilsong17 (Posts: 735; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)


Lol and you are dumb for not checking the coverage map... if you live in a rare place check coverage map

posted on 08 Jun 2014, 09:01

65. joe1blue (Posts: 81; Member since: 25 Jul 2013)


I live in a popular location in south Florida and I checked the coverage maps and is completely covered, still sprint suck like hell slower than dial up speeds, then I switched to t-mobile and its like night and day I couldn't be happier with my service now. You must live in the back country area where I'm sure sprint sucks and im speaking from traveling experience. Look at the national average of speed test sprint is so danm slow compared to the rest.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 10:56 1

23. CrazyIvan (Posts: 2; Member since: 07 Jun 2014)


a lot of crap is still crap... at&t could be everywhere, but cust service, price plans, and speed is junk. don't even get me going on what AT&T calls "FAST & Improved """FIBEROPTIC"" " for their landlines

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 13:10

38. Shatter (Posts: 1970; Member since: 29 May 2013)


ATT is a joke, they have Fiber at my house and the best plan is 18mbps for like $65 a month... They also force you to use their gateway and pay for it each month and its a really bad gateway that probably gives the NSA direct access to your network.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 14:03

48. wilsong17 (Posts: 735; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)


Question for you can you enjoy 70 gb a month for 70 dollars can I get that with att

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 01:21 2

3. galanoth (Posts: 283; Member since: 26 Nov 2011)


Karma's a B****.
Also, AT&T has a sports building.
Where is the T-Mobile arena/center/stadium/field?

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 09:07

17. donfem (Posts: 515; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


I guess you never read anyting about Bayern Munchen. :)

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 01:32 4

4. wilsong17 (Posts: 735; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)


OK guys cut the cap any giving day a network can go down

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 07:35

11. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


Ditto. Networks go down sometimes. It's a given. Even Verizon has gone down.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 03:08 5

5. Shatter (Posts: 1970; Member since: 29 May 2013)


At least WiFi calling worked... If it was att you would literally have no service.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 04:17

7. bugsbunny00 (Posts: 889; Member since: 07 Jun 2013)


if it was samsung AC would be just fine,they make AC TOO..

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 07:34 2

10. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)


If it was a Samsung AC it would be a jumbled mess of buttons and knobs.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 08:26 3

13. tedkord (Posts: 4282; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


And sell more than twice as many as any other AC manufacturer in the world.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 09:07

18. donfem (Posts: 515; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


And where would your ultimate "toy" be?

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 05:49 1

8. Sprissy (Posts: 72; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)


I like Legere, but the T-mobile network still hasn't improved enough for me to switch, having better building penetration would definitely help.

posted on 07 Jun 2014, 07:10 3

9. sun0066 (Posts: 73; Member since: 12 Feb 2011)


Here is south Florida t mobile can not be better , and it feels really good when you don't have be looking to see how much data you consume .thanks t mobile

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories