T-Mobile CEO John Legere learns meaning of Instant Karma

T-Mobile CEO John Legere learns meaning of Instant Karma
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 2014 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?!?!" Obviously, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment from the pro-consumer executive. AT&T pays to have its name on the building, and has nothing to do with the the AC at the arena.

But the executive found out that what goes around, comes around. By Friday morning, there was talk that T-Mobile's network was experiencing problems, forcing Legere to send out a tweet explaining how T-Mobile was dealing with a nationwide problem on its pipeline. Eventually, the problem was repaired.

Will this bit of Instant Karma stop T-Mobile's top executive from using his wit against the competition (especially AT&T) in the future? Don't count on it.


source: CNET via AndroidAuthority

FEATURED VIDEO

75 Comments

1. Duketytz

Posts: 534; Member since: Nov 28, 2013

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

6. WakaFlakaD

Posts: 575; Member since: Apr 30, 2011

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

55. corporateJP

Posts: 2458; Member since: Nov 28, 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...

42. RoundhouseMcGee

Posts: 188; Member since: May 25, 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?

63. dorian827

Posts: 161; Member since: Jul 28, 2012

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

2. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

12. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

15. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

22. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

27. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

30. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

31. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

33. Mxyzptlk unregistered

"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.

37. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

44. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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?

60. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 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.

61. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

68. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 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.

69. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

71. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Again that's why apps like sensorly exist.

35. Shatter

Posts: 2036; Member since: May 29, 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.

43. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

45. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

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

47. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

52. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Looks like I just got the better of Sniggly.

54. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

62. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

64. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 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.

73. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

66. jmonteiro829

Posts: 261; Member since: Feb 13, 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.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.