Coops are customer owned, so they are more likely to do that than a for profit utility whose shareholders don't like projects that incur a lot of long term debt, even if it makes sense when you look at it over a decade.
The End of DIRECTV?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 282
- Views 30K
- Status
Coops are customer owned, so they are more likely to do that than a for profit utility whose shareholders don't like projects that incur a lot of long term debt, even if it makes sense when you look at it over a decade.
I have gigabit fiber service from my co-op. It’s the second smallest in Alabama and they are covering the entire service area and surrounding towns.
Service is great, like daylight and dark from slow DSL we could get before.
i contacted mine after reading about others doing this.
got a call back, they dont want to go into that business,
but then said are searching for a partner to do it.
not holding my breath
Pie in the sky. If, if, if; If they knew what they were doing they wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Why in the world would anyone assume they won't screw up 5G and AirGig like everything else including the ill-advised DTV and T-W acquisitions? The author of that article is correct, they need a new management team that actually knows what it's doing.
Why would you assume they will, when they've been very successful in cellular? To argue AT&T doesn't know what they are doing when it comes to cellular is to deny reality.
They seem more successful than others at alienating customers.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
So, I definitely see that a lot online and in nationwide polls, but no one I know who has AT&T (or Cricket) service is dissatisfied. I realize there is some regionalism to it, and we have it pretty good around here with AT&T service and stores, but you don't maintain the number of wireless customers they have without doing something right. I generally do not like AT&T as a company, but I cannot complain about their wireless or broadband fiber services which are the best options available to me at this time.
So, AT&T isn't just messing with DirecTV:
Everyone who used to run Time Warner is out the door less than a year after AT&T paid $85 billion for the media giant
Everyone who used to run Time Warner is out the door less than a year after AT&T paid $85 billion for the media giant
I believe I've read where ATT loses more customers to T-Mobile than Verizon. Apparently, T-Mobile is growing big time at ATT and Verizon expense with their lower prices and improving coverage. I pay less than half what I paid for ATT and have coverage where I want it.
T-Mobile makes a big deal about how many customers it steals from other companies, and their coverage is improving. That said, AT&T and Verizon still have much better coverage overall, both still have roughly twice the number of subscribers as T-Mobile, and all three continue to grow, so I don't believe it is as dire for AT&T as John Legere would have us all believe. FirstNet will likely result in even more AT&T customers as it gets rolled out as well. As for price, it depends on what you want, but T and VZW do both tend to charge more than T-Mobile. If I could get by with T-Mobile and save a bunch of money, I would certainly go that way, but there are still too many holes in their coverage around here for my use case, and it doesn't look like their 600MHz rollout is going to change things dramatically.
For reference:
US wireless/mobile subscribers by carrier 2018 | Statista
Last edited:
I’ve had service with what is now AT&T for well over 25 years. Got my first phone with the old Bell South Mobility, it was a ‘bag phone’ LOL remember those?
Then Bell South and SBC merged their wireless units in a joint venture, and Bell South Mobility became Cingular.
I’ve always been fairly happy with the service I’ve received.
I’ve never used Verizon, the price for AT&T has always been better for my needs.
It is much better now. But for years AT&T always has better coverage in my area than Verizon did.
Most people in this region have AT&T for that reason., although I am sure Verizon is close to parity in coverage now.
Exactly!
I had a customer ask me about 5G for his cell phone.
I pulled out my Verizon 4G iPhone and ran a speed test and got 125 Down.
I told him if i can get those speeds on 4G, why do I need 5G
Actually att 5g ( phony) is slower than Verizon 4g
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
I've had all 3 in my area.
TM = holes everywhere and not far off interstate system it begins disappearing in extreme fashion.
Verizon = random dead spots in the strangest and well populated areas.
Att= Solid through and through and haven't seen any loss in the same exact areas as where the other 2 loose coverage completely.
Speed?
No contest with ATT here running up front.
*Things may have changed since each swap and overlap, but just my overall synopsis and experience.
*Price ?
Everything in and under blue for this house can not be compared.
Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk
Mobile phone/data performance is very location dependent. For the majority of people, one is significantly better than the others where they live for largely historical reasons. If I lived 50 miles east of where I do, I might prefer VZW. If I lived in DC, I might prefer T-Mobile. There is even someone here on SatelliteGuys (can't recall who), who thinks that Sprint is the best, and it probably is where they live. Overall, the top two are going to provide the best coverage nationwide, and T-Mobile is coming on strong in coverage. Verizon has great coverage where I live, but it often unusable due to how oversold the network is around here. I tried switching to VZW in December and had to switch back to AT&T, just to get decent performance. As mentioned previously, 50 miles east of me, Verizon is the bomb. On average, if you can get coverage, Verizon is going to be a little better than the others, but not always or everywhere. This is why people I know who travel a lot often prefer Verizon, even if it sucks where they live.
AT&T should end up having better coverage than anyone in a few years, because AT&T won a 25 year contract to build and operate FirstNet, a nationwide network dedicated to first responders. This lets them get around a lot of the red tape of local regulations around locations for cell towers, so they will be able to fill in dead spots more easily.
...as well as an obligation to fill in a lot of holes in the map. AT&T put a FirstNet tower up in my parents' town, although still no signal as of yet. Once it is live, I think you can expect everyone in that town to switch to AT&T as there is currently no coverage from any carrier, despite what the maps say.
I just switched from T-Mobile back to Verizon because T-Mobile has so many dead zones and their indoor coverage in buildings is little to none. Plus once you go out to the country good luck getting service. There is a reason why everybody here in Idaho has Verizon it's the most reliable of the 4 in these parts. If you ask me I don't believe T-Mobile's going to do much more after the 600 megahertz build-out.
- Status
