Picking the wrong phone carrier in 2025 can lock you into sluggish data, dropped calls, and support headaches. Drawing on recent survey-based ratings from Consumer Reports, I focus here on five providers that stand out for low satisfaction, weak reliability, or both. Each one illustrates a different way a “cheap” or convenient plan can cost you more in frustration over time.
1. Why US Mobile Tops the List of Carriers to Skip
US Mobile lands at the bottom of Consumer Reports’ latest rankings because it received the lowest overall satisfaction score among major carriers and MVNOs. In the detailed breakdown of cell services, US Mobile trails competitors on key categories such as VALUE, CUSTOMER, SUPPORT, DATA, RECEPTION, and OVERALL, signaling consistent underperformance rather than a single weak spot. When a carrier scores poorly across that many dimensions, it suggests systemic issues that are unlikely to be fixed by a simple plan tweak or promotional discount.
US Mobile itself highlights an OVERALL SCORE table on its own Mobile ratings page, underscoring how central these metrics have become to the brand’s identity, yet independent survey data still places it at the bottom of the pack. A separate discussion of Mobile versus Verizon shows how intensely users now compare MVNOs to the big networks on reliability and value. For consumers, the stakes are simple: a rock-bottom satisfaction score is a red flag that everyday performance, from streaming to basic calls, may not meet expectations.
2. The Pitfalls of Choosing Mint Mobile in 2025
Mint Mobile earns its place on this avoid list because Consumer Reports’ latest ratings show weak performance in both data speeds and customer service reliability. In the same survey-driven analysis that flagged US Mobile, Mint’s scores on high-traffic tasks like video streaming and app downloads lag behind rivals, and its support channels receive below-average marks for responsiveness and problem resolution. When a carrier underdelivers on data performance and then struggles to fix issues quickly, customers can feel stuck with buffering screens and unresolved tickets.
Those concerns are echoed in independent comparisons that pit Google Fi and against each other, where reviewers describe real-world slowdowns and inconsistent help when connections falter. For budget-conscious users, Mint’s prepaid bundles can look attractive, but the tradeoff is that heavy data users, remote workers, and frequent travelers may find the network’s congestion and support gaps especially costly. In 2025, when so much daily life depends on reliable mobile data, that combination makes Mint a risky primary carrier.
3. Google Fi’s Reliability Issues Make It a Risky Pick
Google Fi also ranks low in Consumer Reports’ overall satisfaction and network reliability metrics, which is why I place it alongside Mint as a carrier to avoid. The same survey-based methodology that identifies the best and worst providers shows Fi trailing on consistent coverage and call quality, particularly outside dense urban cores. When a service that markets itself on smart network switching still posts weak reliability scores, it suggests that the underlying roaming and prioritization strategies are not delivering for everyday users.
Broader research into phone-plan satisfaction, such as the survey work described in Consumer Reports coverage of best and worst carriers, reinforces how central reliability has become to user happiness. For Google Fi customers, that means dropped calls on work trips, inconsistent international performance, and uncertainty about which partner network they are actually on at any given moment. In a year when more people rely on hotspotting and video calls, those reliability gaps can outweigh Fi’s flexible pricing and eSIM convenience.
4. Visible’s Shortcomings in Support and Speeds
Visible, a Verizon-based MVNO, appears in Consumer Reports’ worst-performers list because of subpar scores in customer support and data speeds. Survey respondents report that Visible’s all-digital support model often leaves them cycling through chatbots and delayed responses when they need help with outages, billing errors, or porting numbers. At the same time, the carrier’s unlimited plans are frequently cited for slowdowns during peak hours, reflecting low ratings on data performance in the Trustpilot-style feedback that underpins these rankings.
Those weaknesses matter because Visible markets itself to heavy data users who stream, game, and tether laptops regularly. When the very customers who buy “unlimited” access encounter throttling and then cannot reach a human for timely support, frustration builds quickly. The contrast with the underlying Verizon network also raises expectations that Visible does not consistently meet. For anyone who depends on fast uploads for social content, or on quick troubleshooting when SIM activation fails, these support and speed issues are strong reasons to steer clear.
5. Why Consumer Cellular Falls Short for Most Users
Consumer Cellular rounds out the list because Consumer Reports’ comprehensive review finds that it underperforms in voice quality and overall user satisfaction. Despite its reputation as a straightforward, no-frills provider, survey respondents report more issues with call clarity and dropped connections than with many competitors. That pattern stands out in a market where even budget carriers increasingly deliver solid voice performance over LTE and 5G, making Consumer Cellular’s lagging scores a notable concern.
Industry-wide data from the American Customer Satisfaction shows Customer satisfaction with wireless slipping 1.3% to a score of 74 on a scale of 0 to 100, and Consumer Cellular has historically beaten major carriers within that context. Yet the newer Consumer Reports findings suggest that, relative to today’s best MVNOs, its voice quality and overall satisfaction now look less impressive. For users who make frequent voice calls, especially older customers targeted by its marketing, that decline in perceived quality is a compelling reason to consider alternatives.
More from Morning Overview