x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

Should Verizon, Sprint and AT&T be afraid of T-Mobile?

0. phoneArena posted on 26 Oct 2013, 10:55

With a number of industry leading innovations, T-Mobile has not only become the carrier to watch in the U.S., it is actually taking market share away from the other three major stateside operators; according to the average estimate from seven analysts, T-Mobile will report the addition of 444,000 net new subscribers in their next earnings report due to be released November 5th...

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

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 13:08 1

26. Razrman (Posts: 90; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)

That's very correct. I work in a hospital as well and after I was testing T-Mo for a few months, had to switch back to Verizon, building penetration was horrible there.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:52 4

11. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

I get full signal everywhere in Chicago for half of what you pay, so yes, I am getting what I pay for. ;)

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 14:43 4

38. Derekjeter (Posts: 1070; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)

Me being new to PA, now i see what Fanboys do. I get it you will defend your carrier and or phone. Lets make a deal, you lie to your friends ill lie to my friends but lets not lie to each other. T-mobile is no even close to Verizon coverage but if it makes you feel better at night....good for you.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 17:31

54. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

Wow, you took Smurf's response to heart there, huh?

I agree with both of you. VZW is hands down the best there is... But in Chicago, T-Mobile does get great signal strength. I live in the Chicago area too and I haven't had a dropped or missed call yet with T-Mobile. Building penetration isn't the great, but it's good enough. And the extra $60 bucks a month I save is makes up for that too. Smurf isn't being a fanboy, he's stating the truth.

posted on 28 Oct 2013, 17:59

77. miles16852 (Posts: 241; Member since: 20 Oct 2011)

i sniff another jealous idiot lol

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 15:49

48. jaychildz (Posts: 129; Member since: 31 May 2013)

Here in Chicago everybody has LTE as well, this city is too big to not be supported but in only travel to bigger cities usually so LTE/coverage is no biggie. These people are forgetting about Wi-Fi

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 17:00 1

51. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)

Oh 'Papa', your "full signal everywhere in Chicago" is based on the old formula: 1x -(2g) = 1x¹. So, yes, you are getting what you pay for.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 23:08

63. WakaFlakaD (Posts: 526; Member since: 30 Apr 2011)

Chicago here as well. I've been with T-Mobile since the days of Voicestream. Only complain I had was back then I had unlocked cell phones and would never get 3G while AT&T had it. Nokia N-Series!

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:52 3

12. PBXtech (Posts: 1032; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)

Verizon loves to compare their LTE to T-Mobile's LTE, while ignoring the HSPA+ areas. When you look at it all combined, it's not as bleak as Verizon would have you think.

posted on 28 Oct 2013, 09:21

74. theoak (Posts: 324; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

Yes and no. T-Mobile may advertise 200 cities (for example) with LTE. Okay ... but with lame building penetration ... and say 2/3 of a city being buildings ... yes ... it IS a bleak as Verizon paints it out to be.

Don't get me wrong ... I got sold on T-Mobile in the spring ... got the iPhone 5 ... outside I thought it was great ... stepped inside a building though ... EDGE. I gave them an honest effort for 4 months ... switched to AT&T. Not all areas are like this ... I get that ... $70 for unlimited of ... nothing ... is nothing but money out of my pocket.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 14:25

37. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)

I completely agree with you!! Hey, this is slightly off-topic, did you ever figure out how to limit MMS size on your Note 2?

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 19:32

60. donfem (Posts: 693; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)

I guess what you pay justifies how much time sent in areas where you hardly frequent?

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:31 1

6. darkkjedii (Posts: 24454; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)

AT&T and Verizon are simply too big at this point. Sprint should probably be nervous though.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:36 1

8. lsutigers (Posts: 821; Member since: 08 Mar 2009)

I like TMO and their recent uncarrier initiatives but they just don't have the coverage. If they expand their coverage to at last where Sprint and AT&T are, I would consider switching. As far as being afraid, at this point Sprint is rapidly improving it's network and has a much greater coverage area so competitors are not standing still either.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:56 1

14. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

Sprint doing it's "Network Vision" is basically a marketing gimmick. They've "completed" Chicago a few months ago, and data speeds and coverage has not changed one bit. Btw, T-Mo's coverage isn't bad at all. It was two years ago, but has greatly improved since then.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 12:18 3

19. dragon76 (Posts: 24; Member since: 24 Jun 2012)

in your area it may not be that bad but around me they are the only carrier stuck on 2G so its ok for feature phones, but smart phones not so much. I don't care how unlimited and cheap.... have you tried browsing the web with a GS4 on EDGE

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 13:39

29. lsutigers (Posts: 821; Member since: 08 Mar 2009)


I noticed you mentioned this same thing several times about Sprint's network in Chicago and that is simply NOT TRUE. I was in Chicago 2 months ago and had LTE pretty much everywhere and even 3G speeds in some areas were 1.5mbps+. Please stop spreading misinformation if you do not use Sprint.

One of our field offices at work is located in Chicago and all of our employees are on Sprint so I know for a fact this is not true.

BTW my personal service is with Verizon and my Sprint phone worked almost on par. You are just a TMO fan boy that always bashes Sprint.

An yes, I have used TMO and know first hand their coverage is sub par to AT&T and Sprint (which are about equal), not to mention Verizon.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 13:53

31. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

Really? Care to visit Chicago and try to catch LTE in Downtown? Aurora? Naperville? Niles? Schaumburg? My aunt has Sprint and never catches a LTE signal. I run speed tests every time and speeds are under 5mbps and 0.4 on 3G. Face it, Sprint sucks. Period.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 14:13

33. lsutigers (Posts: 821; Member since: 08 Mar 2009)

Nah man. Not true but keep telling yourself that and I just told you I was in Chicago 2 months ago and got solid LTE in the areas you mentioned.

How is it that an office of 30+ employees with iPhone 5's get LTE all over Chicago and your aunt doesn't? She needs to have her phone checked, if you even have an aunt on Sprint, which sounds a little suspect.

I'm not even bashing your beloved TMO, in fact look at my post above #8, I praised them for shaking up the industry with their uncarrier offerings but the reality is their coverage is not even close to the big 3. And its not just me saying that, many TMO users agree that if you are in a metro area or on an interstate the service is quite good, they just can't compete when it comes to coverage in suburban area, not to mention rural.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 18:41

57. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)

Sprint has absolutely the worst coverage in the fox river valley cities of illinois. Honestly Sprint 3g is the worst wireless experience money can buy.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 23:11

64. lsutigers (Posts: 821; Member since: 08 Mar 2009)

Their coverage has never been an issue in Chicago, it's very good everywhere I have been. It was data speeds that used to be slow after the iPhone was released, much like what happened to AT&T who also got caught off guard with a sudden spike in customers and data usage (which there is no excuse for, they both should have known it was coming) but since Network Vision deployment in Chicago, the Sprint network is much better. They have the metro area covered with LTE and 3G has also drastically improved due to the upgrade. In most areas I got solid LTE with speeds ranging from 12-32mbps and 3G speeds from 1.2-2.4mbps.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 13:04 1

24. darkkjedii (Posts: 24454; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)

Tmobile needs that expansion. Out here in Vegas, no matter where I've had them, coverage was subpar. AT&T has consistently been the overall best, and that ain't saying much. I'd rank them 1. AT&T 2. Verizon 3. Sprint 4. Tmobile, as I've had them all. Tmobile'snew plan structure is the wave of the future, and will spur huge growth.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 15:12 2

41. true1984 (Posts: 830; Member since: 23 May 2012)

I agree. I live in MD and Tmo is pretty terrible. Verizon is still the best out here but with Sprint I get LTE everywhere, so it's pretty good. Not too sure about AT&T though.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 14:18

34. MartyK (Posts: 935; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)

I believe in a year are less Sprint will be in the game again, once they launch their tri band service, so I think the big 2, should be very concern or lower their price.
I have both T-Mobile and Sprint..

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:37

9. 14545 (Posts: 1671; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)

In the short term, no. If Tmo adds customers and starts building a true national network to rival ATT and VZW, yes. But there's no telling what their plans are regarding new markets, and they would have to have a much greater rural market rollout for that to happen.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:41 3

10. SupermanayrB (Posts: 895; Member since: 20 Mar 2012)

Until their coverage is equal or almost close to it, then no. Less expensive doesn't mean better. Bimmers & Benzs' are still selling even though Hyundai has luxury cars for half the price of those two.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 11:59

15. PBXtech (Posts: 1032; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)

More Carly, please.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 12:01 1

16. Sprissy (Posts: 193; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)

If I lived in an area where T-Mobile actually had great service then I would consder them but until that happens I will have to stick with Verizon....with any luck T-Mobile will force Verizon to at least offer its customers a better deal then they are currently getting but honestly I don't see that happening....they out for every penny they can get...and we keep paying it for great coverage.

posted on 26 Oct 2013, 12:04 1

17. jamesedward318 (Posts: 99; Member since: 25 Dec 2010)

People are always going to look at how much they can save in terms of dollars and cents. So while the cost of living continues to soar folks will start to cut back in areas that are insanely expensive. I think T-Mobile will continue to add more and more customers and by this time next year I see them acquiring more regional carriers.

posted on 27 Oct 2013, 02:18

66. johnbftl (Posts: 281; Member since: 09 Jun 2012)

That is not true at all. There are a few things people week adamantly keep the same regardless of another provider offering a lower price, so long as it is something they are happy with. People will not change their television, home phone, high speed internet, or wireless service providers unless provoked. Those are things are affect their daily lives and customers get very upset if they change and are not happy with the new provider, this will remain with who they have if their current provider has not upset them to the point of leaving.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories