SprintPCS to ATTWS to... SprintPCS??

Justin Green wrote:
> "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:48:55 -0500, Steven J Sobol
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.cellular Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only improvement I note in SprintPCS customer service is its
>>>> employees saying its improved.
>>>
>>> Either Phillipe is saying I work for SPCS or that I've not said CS
>>> has improved. Both of those statements are patently false. CS has
>>> made some big improvements. They still have a ways to go before
>>> they are up to par, though.
>
>
> Yes, they improved on hold times while increasing the number of calls
> it takes to get a resolution.

Nope. Our average number of calls per subscriber is actually down. Not a
lot, but significantly so.

> Overall, their CS is still ****ty.

That's for the customer to decide.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

---

› See More: SprintPCS to ATTWS to... SprintPCS??

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Michael Yermian) wrote:

> The new JD Powers is coming out this month... wonder what is in store
> for everyone.
>
> --
> Michael Y.

Where have you been? It came out August 28.

http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pressr...asp?ID=2003074

I live in Northern California and was an ATTWS customer for over 7 years,
having transitioned from their analog service, to their digital service to
their GSM service. With their digital service I got adequate coverage
outdoors, with consistent dropped calls in predictable areas. Indoor
reception wasn't very good. Their GSM service was horrible. Many dropped
calls etc etc.

I finally switched to sprint and have been very pleased. I can drive all
over the place and use my cell phone w/o dropouts. Service indoors seems to
be very good, so good in fact that I no longer use a landline. I have not had
the customer service nightmares that I have read about. My only complaint
about sprint phones is that the battery life seems to be crummy vs the ATT
phones that I had before.

David






On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:54:51 -0700, Todd Henderson wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Looking for comments on anyone else considering the same transition... am I
> missing anything with my logic?
>
> When I initially started using a cell phone about 5 years ago I signed up
> with Sprint. It worked adequately, I didn't have any billing/customer
> service nightmares or anything that I hear about today. Then I moved onto a
> job where my cell phone became an essential communication tool that had to
> be dependable when my company needed to contact me. Sprint was usually ok,
> but I experienced the missed calls and late (as much as days late) voice
> mail problems occasionally that most veteran Sprint PCS users are familiar
> with. After doing some research I discovered ATTWS was renowned for it's
> reliability, though slightly more pricey. So about 2 1/2 years ago I
> decided to shell out the money and switch to ATTWS for their national one
> rate plan. I'm not a heavy talker (500-1000 mins/month), but travel often
> (95% within the US) and need reliability. ATTWS delivered, and I had a
> reliable cell phone that has worked everywhere I've been. When I renewed my
> 1 year contract with ATTWS I received additional anytime and N/W minutes
> which has made over usage a non-concern.
>
> Times they change. Lately I seem to be experiencing small problems with my
> ATTWS service. The calls have gotten less clear, and occasionally I will
> miss a call entirely (though thankfully the voicemail always seems to show
> up almost instantly so it has never caused a huge problem). It may be a
> problem with my phone, but I suspect it's part of the conversion from TDMA
> to GSM. My ATTWS contract expires in November and I'm trying to determine
> what to do.
>
> I still need a reliable phone with good national coverage on top of
> anything. I fear that ATTWS TDMA network will continue to deteriorate and
> the GSM network still sounds FAR from adequate. With the GAIT phones almost
> non-existent and the existent ones unattractive, I feel it may be time to
> depart from ATTWS.
>
> Sprint is looking attractive. With ATTWS I have the National One Rate, with
> my retention bonus on my last contract I get 550 Anytime 1000 N/W for
> $59.99. With SprintPCS I could purchase a Free & Clear *WITH* Vision plan
> with 500 Anytime Unlimited N/W and Unlimited Internet for $60.
>
> The coverage for both are almost nationally inclusive, and both include free
> roaming, but for the same price with Sprint I would get Unlimited Internet
> on a faster data network. With ATTWS GSM is almost a non option with no
> attractive GAIT phones, so data isn't an option really. Even if it were an
> option I understand the GPRS network is slower than the CDMA and ATTWS isn't
> unlimited (yes I'm aware there's stipulations with Sprints but I don't plan
> on hooking it up to a laptop or anything). From friends who still use
> Sprint in my home area (Northern Ohio) the old missed calls and late
> voicemails seem to be nonexistent these days.
>
> So back to Sprint I may go. I'm still reluctant because my service with
> ATTWS has been satisfactory. But their transition to a digital network just
> isn't smooth. Their TDMA is dying and their GSM seems very spotty from what
> I hear. Being the internet junky I am, I have been craving a phone and plan
> capable of data... Sprint seems far superior in that department as well.
> Unlimited for $15 a month is extremely attractive. Even though I don't plan
> on being a heavy data user I don't like the idea of having to count kb's.
>
> I did read one post from a gentleman a few weeks back who made the exact
> same transition I'm considering and he seemed extremely happy. Has anyone
> else out there done the same, or considering it, and have anything to add?
> I would appreciate any input. Thanks.
>
>

Hello from a recent ATTWS customer with Sprint:

1) I only left ATWS because they shut down the TDMA pocketnet service,
forcing me to go to GSM. I need a phone that talks and one that is internet
capable. My opinion of the GSM coverage was that it was too weak to be of
much use to me, so it kind of killed it for me

2) My sprint phone roams more than my ATTWs TDMA phone did. There are more
areas, but not money, where it does not work at all. I have been on analog
roam far more often than my ATTWS TDMA phone did. Overall it works pretty
good and the rate is cheaper. We have the FCA plan with 2000 minutes on two
phones, costs considerably less than ATTWS

3) The vision service is far superior to the old pocketnet. But I don't
know what GSM looks like, all I know is it does not work in as many areas.

4) The price you pay though is customer service. By and large my opinion is
that Sprint customer service is that they are wacky, inconsistent,
sometimes completely incompetent. They are a far cry from what you are used
to.

I'd love to go back to ATTWS, even pay more, but the prime mission is the
phone has to work in all areas I am traveling, and I think ATTWS made a
strategic blunder forcing people to choose between GSM or get out. I got
out.

In article <[email protected]>,
David <[email protected]> wrote:

> My only complaint
> about sprint phones is that the battery life seems to be crummy vs the ATT
> phones that I had before.
>
> David

That is surprising since to the best of my knowledge SprintPCS phones
all come with Lithium batteries, and I know that many AT&T phones come
with cheaper Nickel Methydride batteries.

Are you using a no-name car charger with your Sprint phone?

In article <[email protected]>,
"mcdgi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 4) The price you pay though is customer service. By and large my opinion is
> that Sprint customer service is that they are wacky, inconsistent,
> sometimes completely incompetent. They are a far cry from what you are used
> to.


They may be less than we'd like, but they are no worse than Warner Cable
or SBC in my experience.

I think your experience is one that is being repeated over and over
again in many areas. AT&T needs to get one the ball and adopt GAIT
phones in a big way or face the prospect of loosing customers such as
yourself (and me) who want two things above all else, voice-coverage and
data. If my data only works in the big cities, thats fine with me, but
voice has to work everywhere.

Vision is ok, but in my experience it tends to be much more of a battery
hog than AT&T's GPRS. I've used a Samsung A500 on Sprint quite a bit
and to Sprints credit, NOTHING i have ever tried comes close to sounding
more clear and free of background noise while in the car than the
combination of Samsung and Sprint.

The reason you're using Analog a lot more is because that's the way the
roaming list in your phone (PRL) is set up. Sprint can't afford to let
you roam on other CDMA digital networks when an analog one is available
for less=)

Analog uses MEGA battery and with pretty much any sprint phone (perhaps
other than the Sanyo) you gotta use it plugged in. Having said that
though, i've made analog calls before and despite the sprint guy
commercials touting otherwise the sound quality is really not that bad.
Very very usable indeed.

If Sprint would adopt SMS i'd switch back! Sprint so far is the only
company that will give me coverage, data AND 8pm nights and weekends.
AT&T is going to make me switch to 9pm if i go with GSM. If AT&T could
give me data + coverage and a somewhat clear answer on roaming charges
and policies, i'd stick with them.

hahaha, i just relaized something. Maybe i need verizon!

Damn, i can't beleive i just said that......Time for more coffee.

--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA



"mcdgi" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Hello from a recent ATTWS customer with Sprint:
>
> 1) I only left ATWS because they shut down the TDMA pocketnet service,
> forcing me to go to GSM. I need a phone that talks and one that is internet
> capable. My opinion of the GSM coverage was that it was too weak to be of
> much use to me, so it kind of killed it for me
>
> 2) My sprint phone roams more than my ATTWs TDMA phone did. There are more
> areas, but not money, where it does not work at all. I have been on analog
> roam far more often than my ATTWS TDMA phone did. Overall it works pretty
> good and the rate is cheaper. We have the FCA plan with 2000 minutes on two
> phones, costs considerably less than ATTWS
>
> 3) The vision service is far superior to the old pocketnet. But I don't
> know what GSM looks like, all I know is it does not work in as many areas.
>
> 4) The price you pay though is customer service. By and large my opinion is
> that Sprint customer service is that they are wacky, inconsistent,
> sometimes completely incompetent. They are a far cry from what you are used
> to.
>
> I'd love to go back to ATTWS, even pay more, but the prime mission is the
> phone has to work in all areas I am traveling, and I think ATTWS made a
> strategic blunder forcing people to choose between GSM or get out. I got
> out.
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:ZlV5b.360744$uu5.70482@sccrnsc04...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:48:55 -0500, Steven J Sobol
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In alt.cellular Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The only improvement I note in SprintPCS customer service is its
> >>>> employees saying its improved.
> >>>
> >>> Either Phillipe is saying I work for SPCS or that I've not said CS
> >>> has improved. Both of those statements are patently false. CS has
> >>> made some big improvements. They still have a ways to go before
> >>> they are up to par, though.
> >
> >
> > Yes, they improved on hold times while increasing the number of calls
> > it takes to get a resolution.
>
> Nope. Our average number of calls per subscriber is actually down. Not a
> lot, but significantly so.
>
> > Overall, their CS is still ****ty.
>
> That's for the customer to decide.

And they are. At one of the highest churn rates in the industry.

GSM handset seem to generally have longer talk/standby time - it is probably
something to do with necessary transmission power on GSM vs. CDMA.

--
J
"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My only complaint
> > about sprint phones is that the battery life seems to be crummy vs the
ATT
> > phones that I had before.
> >
> > David
>
> That is surprising since to the best of my knowledge SprintPCS phones
> all come with Lithium batteries, and I know that many AT&T phones come
> with cheaper Nickel Methydride batteries.
>
> Are you using a no-name car charger with your Sprint phone?

In article <[email protected]>,
"J" <[email protected]> wrote:

> GSM handset seem to generally have longer talk/standby time - it is probably
> something to do with necessary transmission power on GSM vs. CDMA.
>
> --
> J
> "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > David <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > My only complaint
> > > about sprint phones is that the battery life seems to be crummy vs the
> ATT
> > > phones that I had before.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > That is surprising since to the best of my knowledge SprintPCS phones
> > all come with Lithium batteries, and I know that many AT&T phones come
> > with cheaper Nickel Methydride batteries.
> >
> > Are you using a no-name car charger with your Sprint phone?


Or, if he has now started using Vision on his phone, which since it'll
turn on your screen backlight will use up batteries FAST

> hahaha, i just relaized something. Maybe i need verizon!
>
> Damn, i can't beleive i just said that......Time for more coffee.

I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned Verizon. Using 800 Mhz and
CDMA should give them the best indoor coverage of the bunch. Also should
require fewer towers than 1900 Mhz.

I'm thinking of switching to VZN.

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:ZlV5b.360744$uu5.70482@sccrnsc04...
> > Justin Green wrote:
> > > "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:48:55 -0500, Steven J Sobol
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In alt.cellular Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The only improvement I note in SprintPCS customer service is its
> > >>>> employees saying its improved.
> > >>>
> > >>> Either Phillipe is saying I work for SPCS or that I've not said CS
> > >>> has improved. Both of those statements are patently false. CS has
> > >>> made some big improvements. They still have a ways to go before
> > >>> they are up to par, though.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, they improved on hold times while increasing the number of calls
> > > it takes to get a resolution.
> >
> > Nope. Our average number of calls per subscriber is actually down. Not a
> > lot, but significantly so.
> >
> > > Overall, their CS is still ****ty.
> >
> > That's for the customer to decide.
>
> And they are. At one of the highest churn rates in the industry.

Hmm... 2.4% http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/pcs2q03.pdf

Verizon's at 1.7:
http://news.vzw.com/CELLCO%2010-Q%202Q03-as%20filed.pdf

2.2% for AT&T:
http://www.attws.com/wirelessir/down..._08_11_10Q.pdf

cingular is at 2.5%:
http://www.cingular.com/download/Cin...site-final.xls

And Nextel? 1.9%
http://nocache.corporate-ir.net/irey...TL&script=1700

OK, "among the highest." Interesting how small that looks when the
actual numbers are used.


--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"O/Siris ." <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> >
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:ZlV5b.360744$uu5.70482@sccrnsc04...
> > > Justin Green wrote:
> > > > "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:48:55 -0500, Steven J Sobol
> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> In alt.cellular Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The only improvement I note in SprintPCS customer service is its
> > > >>>> employees saying its improved.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Either Phillipe is saying I work for SPCS or that I've not said CS
> > > >>> has improved. Both of those statements are patently false. CS has
> > > >>> made some big improvements. They still have a ways to go before
> > > >>> they are up to par, though.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, they improved on hold times while increasing the number of
calls
> > > > it takes to get a resolution.
> > >
> > > Nope. Our average number of calls per subscriber is actually down.
Not a
> > > lot, but significantly so.
> > >
> > > > Overall, their CS is still ****ty.
> > >
> > > That's for the customer to decide.
> >
> > And they are. At one of the highest churn rates in the industry.
>
> Hmm... 2.4% http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/pcs2q03.pdf
>
> Verizon's at 1.7:
> http://news.vzw.com/CELLCO%2010-Q%202Q03-as%20filed.pdf
>
> 2.2% for AT&T:
> http://www.attws.com/wirelessir/down..._08_11_10Q.pdf
>
> cingular is at 2.5%:
> http://www.cingular.com/download/Cin...site-final.xls
>
> And Nextel? 1.9%
>
http://nocache.corporate-ir.net/irey...TL&script=1700
>
> OK, "among the highest." Interesting how small that looks when the
> actual numbers are used.
>

Multiply that times the number of subscribers and then times the number of
average dollars per subscriber, and it's not small at all.

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan W. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The reason you're using Analog a lot more is because that's the way the
>roaming list in your phone (PRL) is set up. Sprint can't afford to let
>you roam on other CDMA digital networks when an analog one is available
>for less=)

I would be very suprised if it cost SPCS less to roam on analog networks,
since AMPS is a real bandwidth hog, and the major providers are phasing
it out as fast as they can. It used to be that SPCS phones had the
cellular CDMA functionality disabled. Furthermore, older SPCS PRLs did not
allow cellular CDMA roaming even on phones capable of it. I understand
that both situations have changed. If you are an SPCS user who ends up
on analog a lot, is it possible that you have a phone on which the CDMA
functionality is disabled? I understand that roaming on Verizon or Alltel
CDMA is common now for SPCS users.

In article <[email protected]>,
Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
>That is surprising since to the best of my knowledge SprintPCS phones
>all come with Lithium batteries, and I know that many AT&T phones come
>with cheaper Nickel Methydride batteries.
>
>Are you using a no-name car charger with your Sprint phone?

CDMA phones are less power efficient on standby than GSM phones.

--
Mark Henderson
"Heilir æsir. Heilar ásynjur. Heil sjá in fjölnýta fold." - Sigrdrífumál
OpenPGP/GnuPG keys available at http://www.squirrel.com/pgpkeys.asc
HTML-only/base64 email addressed to me is automatically and silently discarded.