Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T

Tags:
  • Cingular
  • At&T
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 8:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&nc...
edeal/20040813/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularsetforearlyclearance>

Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T

More about : good cingular takeover

August 13, 2004 11:37:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

That link got me a dead end.

Fred

"Harvey" <HAR@blit.com> wrote in message
news:HAR-868DF7.11344313082004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&nc...
> edeal/20040813/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularsetforearlyclearance>
>
> Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T
Related resources
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 12:45:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Is this Phillie with the Mac and broken link in a new ID?

Chris

"Harvey" <HAR@blit.com> wrote in message
news:HAR-868DF7.11344313082004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&nc...
> edeal/20040813/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularsetforearlyclearance>
>
> Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 12:45:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In alt.cellular Chris Russell <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
> Is this Phillie with the Mac and broken link in a new ID?

Probably. But the fact is that Cingular's takeover of AT&T can only mean
good things for AT&T's customers.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 3:36:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

The first post had a broken link that you would have to copy and paste the
end. The next one had a tinyurl that got you there. I just went to Yahoo
Technology news and dug down to it.

Chris

"Fred" <Fred267@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o gcTc.16687$Yf6.13678@lakeread03...
> That link got me a dead end.
>
> Fred
>
> "Harvey" <HAR@blit.com> wrote in message
> news:HAR-868DF7.11344313082004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
>> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&nc...
>> edeal/20040813/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularsetforearlyclearance>
>>
>> Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T
>
>
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 3:46:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

assuming we're not one of the ten million sold off.

Stu

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:QbCdnQybCsh_0IDcRVn-jQ@lmi.net...
> In alt.cellular Chris Russell <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
> > Is this Phillie with the Mac and broken link in a new ID?
>
> Probably. But the fact is that Cingular's takeover of AT&T can only mean
> good things for AT&T's customers.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
August 14, 2004 4:50:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Stuart Friedman wrote:
> assuming we're not one of the ten million sold off.
>
> Stu

What would happen if you were sold off, then canceled with your new
provider, what ever it is, and come back to Cingular? Will they say "No, you
cant do that"?
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:05:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <QbCdnQybCsh_0IDcRVn-jQ@lmi.net> on Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:25:22 -0500, Steven
J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>In alt.cellular Chris Russell <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>> Is this Phillie with the Mac and broken link in a new ID?
>
>Probably. But the fact is that Cingular's takeover of AT&T can only mean
>good things for AT&T's customers.

Not necessarily -- ATTWS have the best of both worlds at the moment, with
better customer service, more advanced features, and free roaming on Cingular.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<kreTc.7449$54.112917@typhoon.sonic.net>...

> Not necessarily -- ATTWS have the best of both worlds at the moment, with
> better customer service, more advanced features, and free roaming on Cingular.

Sure- customers always get good deals at a "Going Out of Business"
sale... ;-)

Seriously, however, after being transfered from the US to India and
back at least four times in an activation call two weeks ago, I'm not
sure I'm ready to call AT&T CS better than Cingular's. They are both,
at best, baseline competent, IMHO.

As far as advanced features, what does ATTWS offer that Cingular
doesn't?

And as far as roaming, I suspect that was an intelligent, albeit
expensive, attempt to fix the excellent coverage reputation ATTWS
completely squandered over the last couple of years. Realistically,
the merger will give both AT&T and Cingular customers the same
coverage AT&T customers have now- both networks.
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:06:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

What makes you think that anything like ten million will be sold off?
While Cingular may have to give up some spectrum in some areas, I don't see
any reason to believe that it will have to sell off a significant number of
subscribers.

In <CpcTc.23959$Jp6.5136@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 13 Aug 2004
23:46:42 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote:

>assuming we're not one of the ten million sold off.
>
>Stu
>
>"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>news:QbCdnQybCsh_0IDcRVn-jQ@lmi.net...
>> In alt.cellular Chris Russell <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>> > Is this Phillie with the Mac and broken link in a new ID?
>>
>> Probably. But the fact is that Cingular's takeover of AT&T can only mean
>> good things for AT&T's customers.
>>
>> --
>> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
>> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
>sjsobol@JustThe.net
>> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
>> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
>

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 12:44:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <de37a2e0.0408132234.1d2d83df@posting.google.com> on 13 Aug 2004 23:34:15
-0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<kreTc.7449$54.112917@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>
>> Not necessarily -- ATTWS have the best of both worlds at the moment, with
>> better customer service, more advanced features, and free roaming on Cingular.
>
>Sure- customers always get good deals at a "Going Out of Business"
>sale... ;-)

Indeed, ATTWS is clearly scrambling to prevent meltdown.

>Seriously, however, after being transfered from the US to India and
>back at least four times in an activation call two weeks ago, I'm not
>sure I'm ready to call AT&T CS better than Cingular's. They are both,
>at best, baseline competent, IMHO.

I've never had an ATTWS support call outside of the USA.

>As far as advanced features, what does ATTWS offer that Cingular
>doesn't?

Better OTA configuration. More advanced voicemail. Widespread EDGE. UMTS.

>And as far as roaming, I suspect that was an intelligent, albeit
>expensive, attempt to fix the excellent coverage reputation ATTWS
>completely squandered over the last couple of years.

So be it.

>Realistically,
>the merger will give both AT&T and Cingular customers the same
>coverage AT&T customers have now- both networks.

Perhaps, but that remains to be seen.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 2:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <IseTc.7450$54.112996@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> What makes you think that anything like ten million will be sold off?

Um, the fact that I can read. (Apparently John Navas can't read. Or
doesn't want to--because reading facts might upset things in John's
little world, where things are the way John wants them to be.)

From the article in question, which is the direct source of the ten
million comment:

> Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close
> to giving Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The
> merger agreement requires the company to sell spectrum and
> customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That equates to dumping
> 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers that
> Cingular is gaining in the transaction.

Whether they do it or not is immaterial. The ten million customers
comment came directly from that article, and John's world didn't allow
for anything like that. In the same manner that a frog literally
doesn't see anything that doesn't behave like a fly, John literally
doesn't see anything that doesn't fit into the little world John built
for himself.

So if John doesn't know it, it doesn't exist. He's not ignoring it;
literally, in John's mind, it doesn't exist. So when someone refers to
the "ten million customers" thing, John honestly has no clue what he's
talking about.

Proof, then, that John Navas is clueless.
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 4:03:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In alt.cellular Stuart Friedman <stu@nospam.na> wrote:
> assuming we're not one of the ten million sold off.

My understanding is that AT&T has gotten so bad that just about anyone else
would be an improvement :p 

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 5:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

This excerpt from the Yahoo story explains the loss of 10 million (out of 22
million) customers or $8.25B of ATTWS' current business.

Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close to giving
Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The merger agreement requires
the company to sell spectrum and customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That
equates to dumping 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers that
Cingular is gaining in the transaction.


Chris

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:IseTc.7450$54.112996@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> What makes you think that anything like ten million will be sold off?
> While Cingular may have to give up some spectrum in some areas, I don't
> see
> any reason to believe that it will have to sell off a significant number
> of
> subscribers.
>
> In <CpcTc.23959$Jp6.5136@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 13 Aug
> 2004
> 23:46:42 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote:
>
>>assuming we're not one of the ten million sold off.
>>
>>Stu
>>
>>"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>>news:QbCdnQybCsh_0IDcRVn-jQ@lmi.net...
>>> In alt.cellular Chris Russell <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>>> > Is this Phillie with the Mac and broken link in a new ID?
>>>
>>> Probably. But the fact is that Cingular's takeover of AT&T can only mean
>>> good things for AT&T's customers.
>>>
>>> --
>>> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
>>> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
>>sjsobol@JustThe.net
>>> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
>>> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three
>>> kids.
>>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:24:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

With all due respect, you apparently misunderstand what that says -- it's just
the dollar amount at which Cingular could back out of the deal, not an
expectation that Cingular would actually be required to divest anything close
to that. In fact, recent stories suggest that Cingular won't have to divest
much. Furthermore, the subscriber count is merely a sizing ("equates") of the
maximum possible divestiture value. Cingular might well be required only to
sell off spectrum, not subscribers, as it did in the recent deal with
T-Mobile, which already amounts to a significant divestiture ($2.5 billion).

In <eBoTc.712$yj3.110047@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
13:38:18 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

>This excerpt from the Yahoo story explains the loss of 10 million (out of 22
>million) customers or $8.25B of ATTWS' current business.
>
> Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close to giving
>Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The merger agreement requires
>the company to sell spectrum and customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That
>equates to dumping 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers that
>Cingular is gaining in the transaction.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:IseTc.7450$54.112996@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> What makes you think that anything like ten million will be sold off?
>> While Cingular may have to give up some spectrum in some areas, I don't
>> see
>> any reason to believe that it will have to sell off a significant number
>> of
>> subscribers.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:26:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-489235.07120214082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
07:12:02 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <7ikTc.7506$54.113833@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Seriously, however, after being transfered from the US to India and
>> >back at least four times in an activation call two weeks ago, I'm not
>> >sure I'm ready to call AT&T CS better than Cingular's. They are both,
>> >at best, baseline competent, IMHO.
>>
>> I've never had an ATTWS support call outside of the USA.
>
>Is that relevant to anything ... ?

Yes. The prior statement. I thought that was pretty clear, but you since
you're obviously easily confused, I'm happy to make it even more clear. ;-)

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-1B507F.10204314082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
10:20:43 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <IseTc.7450$54.112996@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> What makes you think that anything like ten million will be sold off?
>
>Um, the fact that I can read. ...

The article doesn't say that, so while you profess to be able to read, you
apparently have a comprehension problem. ;-)

>From the article in question, which is the direct source of the ten
>million comment:
>
>> Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close
>> to giving Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The
>> merger agreement requires the company to sell spectrum and
>> customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That equates to dumping
>> 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers that
>> Cingular is gaining in the transaction.

>[SNIP usual childish ad hominem]

The key word there is "equates", which means that the 10 million is just a way
of sizing the dollar value of the divestiture, which need not (and probably
will not) actually involve any selling off of customers, only spectrum, as in
the recent deal with T-Mobile, a $2.5 billion divestiture of spectrum, with
Cingular retaining all the customers.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:55:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Sorry John, Cingular can't sell $8.25 billion of ATTWS' business if they
haven't bought it in the first place. Your know-it-all logic is totally off
the mark.

Chris

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:WgpTc.7517$54.113758@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> With all due respect, you apparently misunderstand what that says -- it's
> just
> the dollar amount at which Cingular could back out of the deal, not an
> expectation that Cingular would actually be required to divest anything
> close
> to that. In fact, recent stories suggest that Cingular won't have to
> divest
> much. Furthermore, the subscriber count is merely a sizing ("equates") of
> the
> maximum possible divestiture value. Cingular might well be required only
> to
> sell off spectrum, not subscribers, as it did in the recent deal with
> T-Mobile, which already amounts to a significant divestiture ($2.5
> billion).
>
> In <eBoTc.712$yj3.110047@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
> 13:38:18 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
>>This excerpt from the Yahoo story explains the loss of 10 million (out of
>>22
>>million) customers or $8.25B of ATTWS' current business.
>>
>> Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close to giving
>>Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The merger agreement requires
>>the company to sell spectrum and customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That
>>equates to dumping 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers
>>that
>>Cingular is gaining in the transaction.
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:IseTc.7450$54.112996@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>
>>> What makes you think that anything like ten million will be sold off?
>>> While Cingular may have to give up some spectrum in some areas, I don't
>>> see
>>> any reason to believe that it will have to sell off a significant number
>>> of
>>> subscribers.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 6:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <KJpTc.3344$FV3.2550@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
"Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

> Sorry John, Cingular can't sell $8.25 billion of ATTWS' business if they
> haven't bought it in the first place. Your know-it-all logic is totally off
> the mark.

Quit confusing John with the facts.

In JohnNavasWorld, where wizards spit fire from their fingertips, his
logic is perfectly sound.

Of course, no one else lives there...
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 8:04:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Rudeness doesn't make your claim any more compelling.

The actual text of the ATTWS-Cingular merger agreement is available on-line at
<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1138234/00008910...;

Kindly point to specific language that supports your contention (if you can).

-John

In <KJpTc.3344$FV3.2550@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
14:55:38 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

>Sorry John, Cingular can't sell $8.25 billion of ATTWS' business if they
>haven't bought it in the first place. Your know-it-all logic is totally off
>the mark.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:WgpTc.7517$54.113758@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> With all due respect, you apparently misunderstand what that says -- it's
>> just
>> the dollar amount at which Cingular could back out of the deal, not an
>> expectation that Cingular would actually be required to divest anything
>> close
>> to that. In fact, recent stories suggest that Cingular won't have to
>> divest
>> much. Furthermore, the subscriber count is merely a sizing ("equates") of
>> the
>> maximum possible divestiture value. Cingular might well be required only
>> to
>> sell off spectrum, not subscribers, as it did in the recent deal with
>> T-Mobile, which already amounts to a significant divestiture ($2.5
>> billion).
>>
>> In <eBoTc.712$yj3.110047@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
>> 13:38:18 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>This excerpt from the Yahoo story explains the loss of 10 million (out of
>>>22
>>>million) customers or $8.25B of ATTWS' current business.
>>>
>>> Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close to giving
>>>Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The merger agreement requires
>>>the company to sell spectrum and customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That
>>>equates to dumping 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers
>>>that
>>>Cingular is gaining in the transaction.
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 10:20:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-31B15E.13255114082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
13:25:51 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <KJpTc.3344$FV3.2550@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Sorry John, Cingular can't sell $8.25 billion of ATTWS' business if they
>> haven't bought it in the first place. Your know-it-all logic is totally off
>> the mark.
>
>Quit confusing John with the facts.

Reports in the press aren't facts. Facts are:
<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1138234/00008910...;
which don't support his contention.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 10:21:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <G8OdneO3DPF82IPcRVn-sA@lmi.net> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:03:29 -0500, Steven
J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>In alt.cellular Stuart Friedman <stu@nospam.na> wrote:
>> assuming we're not one of the ten million sold off.
>
>My understanding is that AT&T has gotten so bad that just about anyone else
>would be an improvement :p 

Not in this area at least -- service is very good here.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 2:05:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

A merger is a fluid give and take situation. Once the merger is complete
Cingular will have to divest $8.25 billion of spectrum and/or customers.
By the way, go to the site below and read sec 6.5(b) to see that the
'aggregate negative Net Effects' that are to be sold off is $8.25B as
referenced in your SEC filing you posted. It is not the amount that
Cingular would have to pay if they backed out of the deal.

http://snipurl.com/8fqz

And my last message was not rude, you just don't like to hear anyone that
puts a logical statement that contradicts your thinking. You are not the
end all be all arbiter of things Cingular


Chris

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:gKqTc.7536$54.114169@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> Rudeness doesn't make your claim any more compelling.
>
> The actual text of the ATTWS-Cingular merger agreement is available
> on-line at
> <http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1138234/00008910...;
>
> Kindly point to specific language that supports your contention (if you
> can).
>
> -John
>
> In <KJpTc.3344$FV3.2550@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
> 14:55:38 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
>>Sorry John, Cingular can't sell $8.25 billion of ATTWS' business if they
>>haven't bought it in the first place. Your know-it-all logic is totally
>>off
>>the mark.
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:WgpTc.7517$54.113758@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>
>>> With all due respect, you apparently misunderstand what that says --
>>> it's
>>> just
>>> the dollar amount at which Cingular could back out of the deal, not an
>>> expectation that Cingular would actually be required to divest anything
>>> close
>>> to that. In fact, recent stories suggest that Cingular won't have to
>>> divest
>>> much. Furthermore, the subscriber count is merely a sizing ("equates")
>>> of
>>> the
>>> maximum possible divestiture value. Cingular might well be required
>>> only
>>> to
>>> sell off spectrum, not subscribers, as it did in the recent deal with
>>> T-Mobile, which already amounts to a significant divestiture ($2.5
>>> billion).
>>>
>>> In <eBoTc.712$yj3.110047@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
>>> 13:38:18 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This excerpt from the Yahoo story explains the loss of 10 million (out
>>>>of
>>>>22
>>>>million) customers or $8.25B of ATTWS' current business.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close to giving
>>>>Cingular the right to back out of the deal. The merger agreement
>>>>requires
>>>>the company to sell spectrum and customers worth up to $8.25 billion.
>>>>That
>>>>equates to dumping 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers
>>>>that
>>>>Cingular is gaining in the transaction.
>
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 2:57:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <I0wTc.1005$TI4.538@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
22:05:28 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

>A merger is a fluid give and take situation.

Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
modified according to the terms of the agreement.

>Once the merger is complete
>Cingular will have to divest $8.25 billion of spectrum and/or customers.

Also not true. $8.25 billion is just the point at which any party (e.g.,
Cingular) could walk from the deal. In other words, if the FCC required $9
billion of divestiture, Cingular could walk; OTOH, if the FCC required $8
billion of divestiture, Cingular would still be bound by the deal. In
addition, that $8.25 billion is an amount of assets (e.g., spectrum), not
customers.

>By the way, go to the site below and read sec 6.5(b) to see that the
>'aggregate negative Net Effects' that are to be sold off is $8.25B as
>referenced in your SEC filing you posted.

Indeed, do go and actually read it, more carefully.
Here are the relevant parts (numbered for reference below):

1) Nothing in this Agreement shall require, or be construed to require,
Cingular, Cingular Wireless, BellSouth, SBC or their respective
Subsidiaries to take any action or enter into any agreement with
respect to any of its assets, business or operations ... that would,
individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in
the aggregate negative Net Effects being more than the Material
Adverse Amount (as defined in Section 6.5(b) of the Cingular
Disclosure Letter (a "Material Adverse Condition")).

2) For purposes of calculating Net Effects with respect to the sale of a
market or spectrum it is agreed that (i) the Net Effects of the sale
of a market owned by any of the Company, Cingular or Cingular
Wireless will be an amount equal to the Per Subscriber Amount (as
defined in Section 6.5 of the Cingular Disclosure Letter) multiplied
by the number of subscribers in the system and operations in such
market proposed by Cingular, in good faith, to be sold, and (ii) the
Net Effects of the sale of spectrum-only shall be $0.50 per MHz POP.

In short, it simply says (1) that any party can walk from the deal if the
government requires more than $8.5 billion worth of divestiture, and (2) that
the value of divestiture is measured by percentage of the subscriber base.
It does *not* say that *any* divestiture is required!

>It is not the amount that
>Cingular would have to pay if they backed out of the deal.

Of course not -- that's covered elsewhere in the definitive agreement.

>And my last message was not rude,

It was actually quite rude.

>you just don't like to hear anyone that
>puts a logical statement that contradicts your thinking.

I just don't like rudeness and bad information.

>You are not the
>end all be all arbiter of things Cingular

True.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 3:04:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Doesn't add up. Neither company has the same number of POP's or
subscribers. Illogical!

Chris

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:UNwTc.7590$54.114956@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <I0wTc.1005$TI4.538@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
> 22:05:28 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
>>A merger is a fluid give and take situation.
>
> Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
> modified according to the terms of the agreement.
>
>>Once the merger is complete
>>Cingular will have to divest $8.25 billion of spectrum and/or customers.
>
> Also not true. $8.25 billion is just the point at which any party (e.g.,
> Cingular) could walk from the deal. In other words, if the FCC required
> $9
> billion of divestiture, Cingular could walk; OTOH, if the FCC required $8
> billion of divestiture, Cingular would still be bound by the deal. In
> addition, that $8.25 billion is an amount of assets (e.g., spectrum), not
> customers.
>
>>By the way, go to the site below and read sec 6.5(b) to see that the
>>'aggregate negative Net Effects' that are to be sold off is $8.25B as
>>referenced in your SEC filing you posted.
>
> Indeed, do go and actually read it, more carefully.
> Here are the relevant parts (numbered for reference below):
>
> 1) Nothing in this Agreement shall require, or be construed to require,
> Cingular, Cingular Wireless, BellSouth, SBC or their respective
> Subsidiaries to take any action or enter into any agreement with
> respect to any of its assets, business or operations ... that would,
> individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in
> the aggregate negative Net Effects being more than the Material
> Adverse Amount (as defined in Section 6.5(b) of the Cingular
> Disclosure Letter (a "Material Adverse Condition")).
>
> 2) For purposes of calculating Net Effects with respect to the sale of a
> market or spectrum it is agreed that (i) the Net Effects of the sale
> of a market owned by any of the Company, Cingular or Cingular
> Wireless will be an amount equal to the Per Subscriber Amount (as
> defined in Section 6.5 of the Cingular Disclosure Letter) multiplied
> by the number of subscribers in the system and operations in such
> market proposed by Cingular, in good faith, to be sold, and (ii) the
> Net Effects of the sale of spectrum-only shall be $0.50 per MHz POP.
>
> In short, it simply says (1) that any party can walk from the deal if the
> government requires more than $8.5 billion worth of divestiture, and (2)
> that
> the value of divestiture is measured by percentage of the subscriber base.
> It does *not* say that *any* divestiture is required!
>
>>It is not the amount that
>>Cingular would have to pay if they backed out of the deal.
>
> Of course not -- that's covered elsewhere in the definitive agreement.
>
>>And my last message was not rude,
>
> It was actually quite rude.
>
>>you just don't like to hear anyone that
>>puts a logical statement that contradicts your thinking.
>
> I just don't like rudeness and bad information.
>
>>You are not the
>>end all be all arbiter of things Cingular
>
> True.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 3:33:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <qUwTc.2336$ZC7.1548@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
23:04:54 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

>Doesn't add up. Neither company has the same number of POP's or
>subscribers. Illogical!

No offense, Chris, but it does add up if you take the time to understand it.

It's not necessary for the merger partners to have the same number of POP's or
subscribers. Here's how it works. For example:

(i) If the government were to require Cingular to divest the market of Podunk,
and if there were 500,000 subscribers in Podunk, against a total subscriber
base of 30,000,000, then the divestiture would be valued at 500/30000 = 1/60
of the total deal.

(ii) If the government were to instead require Cingular to divest itself of
spectrum in Podunk, then the divestiture would be valued at $0.50 per MHz POP.

Nothing in the deal *requires* *any* divestiture -- this is just the formula
for valuing any divestiture that *might* be required by the government against
the $8.5 billion point at which any party (e.g., Cingular) could walk from the
deal.

Does that help?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
August 15, 2004 8:27:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Harvey" <HAR@blit.com> wrote in message
news:HAR-868DF7.11344313082004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&nc...
> edeal/20040813/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularsetforearlyclearance>
>
> Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T


For those too lazy to copy and paste the link:


Sources said the Justice Department (news - web sites) investigation into
the deal is in its final stages and should be wrapped up by Sept. 25. The
Federal Communication Commission would then conclude its probe in October.
Cingular had predicted clearance late in the fourth quarter, and many
analysts expected it to occur in 2005.


"Our investigation is ongoing, and I won't comment on the timetable," a
Justice Department spokeswoman said.


Officials for Cingular did not return a call for comment.


One source involved in the transaction said the government will not require
Cingular to divest significant wireless spectrum assets, though it appears
the company will be required to make some targeted sales in narrow
geographic markets. Most of these are rural areas where the companies are
not fully utilizing the spectrum.


Regardless, the required divestitures will not come close to giving Cingular
the right to back out of the deal. The merger agreement requires the company
to sell spectrum and customers worth up to $8.25 billion. That equates to
dumping 10 million of the 22 million AT&T Wireless customers that Cingular
is gaining in the transaction.


Sources said Cingular has been working overtime to secure government
acceptance of the merger prior to the November elections. Cingular fears
that a change in presidential administrations could significantly delay the
deal, since a new assistant attorney general and FCC (news - web sites)
chairman would require time to get up to speed on the transaction.


"The thinking of the parties is to get this done before the election," one
of the sources said. "This sets the tone for what is happening."


Cingular's confidence in winning government approval for the deal only grew
Wednesday when the Justice Department asked a federal judge to amend the
2000 consent decree that gave BellSouth Corp. and SBC Communications Inc.
permission to create the wireless carrier. That 2000 decree required
Cingular to divest spectrum in California and Indiana. It also barred the
company from ever repurchasing the spectrum, which was bought by AT&T
Wireless.


The Justice Department told the court that it saw no reason to keep that
repurchase restriction in place because the market has changed dramatically
in four years. It said there are more wireless carriers now offering service
in Los Angeles and Indianapolis, many of which use newer spectrum.


In a statement Assistant Attorney General R. Hewitt Pate warned that the
government's motion does not mean that the antitrust division will clear
Cingular-AT&T Wireless.


Yet sources said much of the analysis in the order indicates that the
Justice Department is analyzing the markets in a way that favors the
companies. For instance, it notes that the combined Cingular-AT&T Wireless
would have at least 20% less market share if they merged than BellSouth and
SBC had in Los Angeles and Indianapolis prior to the creation of Cingular.


The sources said it was significant that the government did not expand the
scope of its analysis to include wireline systems owned by BellSouth or SBC.
Not only would combining wireline and wireless carriers in a single market
make modifying the 2000 order impossible, it also would have increased the
amount of spectrum Cingular would have to divest to buy AT&T Wireless.


"The Justice Department really tipped their hand," one investor said. "This
does say something about how they will look at the deal."


Atlanta-based Cingular agreed in February to acquire Redmond, Wash.-based
AT&T Wireless for $15 in cash per share.
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 9:07:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

Sorry John, I think I now understand. The rural areas where they are not
utilizing the spectrum and might have to divest before the merger, if that
value was more than $8.25 B, any of the parties may opt-out of the merger
(but is not required to opt-out).

I searched online at Cingular and the SEC for the Cingular Disclosure Letter
(which the merger agreements referred to in sec. 6.5 (b)), but only found
the same merger agreement under Cingular and AT&T Wireless.

Chris

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:wjxTc.7599$54.115098@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <qUwTc.2336$ZC7.1548@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
> 23:04:54 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't add up. Neither company has the same number of POP's or
>>subscribers. Illogical!
>
> No offense, Chris, but it does add up if you take the time to understand
> it.
>
> It's not necessary for the merger partners to have the same number of
> POP's or
> subscribers. Here's how it works. For example:
>
> (i) If the government were to require Cingular to divest the market of
> Podunk,
> and if there were 500,000 subscribers in Podunk, against a total
> subscriber
> base of 30,000,000, then the divestiture would be valued at 500/30000 =
> 1/60
> of the total deal.
>
> (ii) If the government were to instead require Cingular to divest itself
> of
> spectrum in Podunk, then the divestiture would be valued at $0.50 per MHz
> POP.
>
> Nothing in the deal *requires* *any* divestiture -- this is just the
> formula
> for valuing any divestiture that *might* be required by the government
> against
> the $8.5 billion point at which any party (e.g., Cingular) could walk from
> the
> deal.
>
> Does that help?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 9:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <wLMTc.1071$CO.865@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:07:40
GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

>Sorry John, I think I now understand. The rural areas where they are not
>utilizing the spectrum and might have to divest before the merger, if that
>value was more than $8.25 B, any of the parties may opt-out of the merger
>(but is not required to opt-out).

Correct. Likewise possible urban areas where they would otherwise have too
much of the available spectrum.

>I searched online at Cingular and the SEC for the Cingular Disclosure Letter
>(which the merger agreements referred to in sec. 6.5 (b)), but only found
>the same merger agreement under Cingular and AT&T Wireless.

I don't think the Cingular Disclosure Letter is public. There are often
appropriately non-public documents in mergers, although I think a good case
can be made that at least some parts of this document should be made public
since they clearly have a potential material effect on the stock price.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 9:18:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In alt.cellular John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Correct. Likewise possible urban areas where they would otherwise have too
> much of the available spectrum.

"too much" doesn't exist as a legal concept anymore, since the FCC got rid
of the spectrum cap a few years ago. Any significant hurdles to completing
the merger are much more likely to be put up by the Department of Justice,
for antitrust reasons, than the FCC.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 9:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <s9MTc.9692$M8.8017@fe2.texas.rr.com> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:27:04 GMT,
"nonsense" <charliemaul@sport.rr.com> wrote:

>For those too lazy to copy and paste the link:
>[SNIP copyrighted material]

The reason for the link is that it's a violation of copyright to post the full
text to the newsgroup. (Oops.)

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 10:31:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <oaGdnel_JewAKILcRVn-og@lmi.net> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:12:29 -0500, Steven
J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>In alt.cellular John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Correct. Likewise possible urban areas where they would otherwise have too
>> much of the available spectrum.
>
>"too much" doesn't exist as a legal concept anymore, since the FCC got rid
>of the spectrum cap a few years ago. Any significant hurdles to completing
>the merger are much more likely to be put up by the Department of Justice,
>for antitrust reasons, than the FCC.

While the FCC lifted the "per se" spectrum cap, it continues to "analyze the
competitive effects of transactions involving mobile telephony service
providers on a case-by-case basis." Thus "too much" does still exist as a
legal concept, just not as a "per se" concept, and it remains "possible" in
any event -- I didn't say likely - that divestiture might be required in an
urban area, by the FCC, Justice Department, or at the instigation of an
interested party (e.g., state government, competitor).

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 4:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:57:56 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <I0wTc.1005$TI4.538@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
>22:05:28 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
>>A merger is a fluid give and take situation.
>
>Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
>modified according to the terms of the agreement.

Which happens regularly -- ESPECIALLY when there are dramatic changes
that affect the business and/or attractiveness of the company being
acquired.
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 4:36:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:23:19 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <s9MTc.9692$M8.8017@fe2.texas.rr.com> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:27:04 GMT,
>"nonsense" <charliemaul@sport.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>For those too lazy to copy and paste the link:
>>[SNIP copyrighted material]
>
>The reason for the link is that it's a violation of copyright to post the full
>text to the newsgroup. (Oops.)

Ever heard of posting a link, or at least the relevant portions that
back up your statement?????
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:03:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <tia1i0t01o138ugmugoul11vtkorsqrfju@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:32:28
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:57:56 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <I0wTc.1005$TI4.538@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
>>22:05:28 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>A merger is a fluid give and take situation.
>>
>>Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
>>modified according to the terms of the agreement.
>
>Which happens regularly -- ESPECIALLY when there are dramatic changes
>that affect the business and/or attractiveness of the company being
>acquired.

Significant changes are relatively uncommon in my experience.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jra1i0t1rcai5h1p9hmeq12gf6p8mmc46r@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:36:44
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:23:19 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <s9MTc.9692$M8.8017@fe2.texas.rr.com> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:27:04 GMT,
>>"nonsense" <charliemaul@sport.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>For those too lazy to copy and paste the link:
>>>[SNIP copyrighted material]
>>
>>The reason for the link is that it's a violation of copyright to post the full
>>text to the newsgroup. (Oops.)
>
>Ever heard of posting a link, or at least the relevant portions that
>back up your statement?????

Ever hear of doing your own homework????? ;-)

I didn't think a link was terribly necessary in this case, but here you go:
"10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html&gt;.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:19:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:05:22 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <jra1i0t1rcai5h1p9hmeq12gf6p8mmc46r@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:36:44
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:23:19 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In <s9MTc.9692$M8.8017@fe2.texas.rr.com> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:27:04 GMT,
>>>"nonsense" <charliemaul@sport.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>For those too lazy to copy and paste the link:
>>>>[SNIP copyrighted material]
>>>
>>>The reason for the link is that it's a violation of copyright to post the full
>>>text to the newsgroup. (Oops.)
>>
>>Ever heard of posting a link, or at least the relevant portions that
>>back up your statement?????
>
>Ever hear of doing your own homework????? ;-)
>
>I didn't think a link was terribly necessary in this case, but here you go:
>"10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
><http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html&gt;.

If you're talking about knowledge of copyright law, thanks for the
tip, but it was required as part of my degree work. There was no link
on the previous post I saw, so if you posted one, I apologize. It
would indeed be against copyright law to post the entire article, but
not to only post one or two paragraphs with a link. That falls
squarely under "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law.
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:24:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:03:08 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <tia1i0t01o138ugmugoul11vtkorsqrfju@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:32:28
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:57:56 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In <I0wTc.1005$TI4.538@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
>>>22:05:28 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A merger is a fluid give and take situation.
>>>
>>>Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
>>>modified according to the terms of the agreement.
>>
>>Which happens regularly -- ESPECIALLY when there are dramatic changes
>>that affect the business and/or attractiveness of the company being
>>acquired.
>
>Significant changes are relatively uncommon in my experience.

Say what? What do you call all the changes that have white-collar jobs
going outside the U.S. While this doesn't relate directly to
Cingular/AT&T, it's absolutely ludicrous to say that significant
changes in business are uncommon -- ESPECIALLY in a business that has
only been part of the mainstream for about 10 years.

If you want to talk about changes, look at what caused AOL/TW (as it
was then known) to take a $54 BILLION write-down to cover the
decreased value of assets between the time the merger was announced
and the time it was completed. If that's not a significant change, I
don't know what is.

See, John, this is where people have problems with your points of
view. Some of them are just so far off the wall, absolutely no one in
their right mind could take them seriously. There's just too much
real-world data that refutes them.

I remember another example where you were saying in
comp.dcom.modems.cable that it was likely that cable providers could
meter bandwidth in the U.S. to cover abuse from streaming media hogs,
etc. Look what's happened: competitive pressures have every broadband
provider upping their speed caps or decreasing prices. And these
things are being done by companies with the cash to make the bets.
It's also happening in a business where prices get continually
cheaper. It didn't make any sense to say it then and it's being proven
wrong now.
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 10:50:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <utg1i0p864hmuhkkbukobb4j7jhg07to2u@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:24:37
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:03:08 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <tia1i0t01o138ugmugoul11vtkorsqrfju@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:32:28
>>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:57:56 GMT, John Navas
>>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <I0wTc.1005$TI4.538@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
>>>>22:05:28 GMT, "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A merger is a fluid give and take situation.
>>>>
>>>>Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
>>>>modified according to the terms of the agreement.
>>>
>>>Which happens regularly -- ESPECIALLY when there are dramatic changes
>>>that affect the business and/or attractiveness of the company being
>>>acquired.
>>
>>Significant changes are relatively uncommon in my experience.
>
>Say what? What do you call all the changes that have white-collar jobs
>going outside the U.S.

Not changes in the *terms of the merger agreement* (and considerably overblown
when you look at actual numbers).

>While this doesn't relate directly to
>Cingular/AT&T, it's absolutely ludicrous to say that significant
>changes in business are uncommon -- ...

I didn't say or even imply that -- the context here is changes in the *terms
of the merger agreement*, not the businesses themselves, which may indeed
change greatly.

>See, John, this is where people have problems with your points of
>view.

See, Cyrus, this is where I have problems with your criticism -- you're
running off half-cocked -- you jumped into the thread late and without paying
enough attention to the context, and thus misinterpreted what I was saying.

>I remember another example where you were saying in
>comp.dcom.modems.cable that it was likely that cable providers could
>meter bandwidth in the U.S. to cover abuse from streaming media hogs,
>etc.

That's not what I said about metering -- you're again misinterpreting what
I was saying.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 10:52:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <iqg1i05r6bjiv83f1mfc3tuqc8q3au2qsk@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:19:48
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:05:22 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <jra1i0t1rcai5h1p9hmeq12gf6p8mmc46r@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:36:44
>>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:23:19 GMT, John Navas
>>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <s9MTc.9692$M8.8017@fe2.texas.rr.com> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:27:04 GMT,
>>>>"nonsense" <charliemaul@sport.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>For those too lazy to copy and paste the link:
>>>>>[SNIP copyrighted material]
>>>>
>>>>The reason for the link is that it's a violation of copyright to post the full
>>>>text to the newsgroup. (Oops.)
>>>
>>>Ever heard of posting a link, or at least the relevant portions that
>>>back up your statement?????
>>
>>Ever hear of doing your own homework????? ;-)
>>
>>I didn't think a link was terribly necessary in this case, but here you go:
>>"10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
>><http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html&gt;.
>
>If you're talking about knowledge of copyright law, thanks for the
>tip, but it was required as part of my degree work. There was no link
>on the previous post I saw, so if you posted one, I apologize. It
>would indeed be against copyright law to post the entire article, but
>not to only post one or two paragraphs with a link. That falls
>squarely under "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law.

[sigh] I said "full text". So now you agree with what I wrote. You again
jumped in without paying enough attention, and misinterpreted what I was
saying. Read more carefully.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 11:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In alt.cellular John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> While the FCC lifted the "per se" spectrum cap, it continues to "analyze the
> competitive effects of transactions involving mobile telephony service
> providers on a case-by-case basis." Thus "too much" does still exist as a
> legal concept, just not as a "per se" concept, and it remains "possible" in
> any event -- I didn't say likely - that divestiture might be required in an
> urban area, by the FCC, Justice Department, or at the instigation of an
> interested party (e.g., state government, competitor).

Ah. Thank you for the clarification.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 12:24:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:50:27 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>>>>>Not true. Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
>>>>>modified according to the terms of the agreement.
>>>>
>>>>Which happens regularly -- ESPECIALLY when there are dramatic changes
>>>>that affect the business and/or attractiveness of the company being
>>>>acquired.
>>>
>>>Significant changes are relatively uncommon in my experience.
>>
>Not changes in the *terms of the merger agreement* (and considerably overblown
>when you look at actual numbers).

But if you look at the original statement, you jumped all over the
other poster when they said merger agreements were regularly admended.
That person said NOTHING about significance, only that changes were
common -- which is very true, if for no other reason than small
amendments in the share exchange rate, etc.
>
>>While this doesn't relate directly to
>>Cingular/AT&T, it's absolutely ludicrous to say that significant
>>changes in business are uncommon -- ...
>
>I didn't say or even imply that -- the context here is changes in the *terms
>of the merger agreement*, not the businesses themselves, which may indeed
>change greatly.

But again, those change regularly as well. And you can't exactly say
the two aren't related. The record writedown that was a result of the
AOL/TW merger was due to the declining value of assets. While that's
business related in one way, it's also part ofthe merger. So the two
issues are very much intertwined.
>
>>See, John, this is where people have problems with your points of
>>view.
>
>See, Cyrus, this is where I have problems with your criticism -- you're
>running off half-cocked -- you jumped into the thread late and without paying
>enough attention to the context, and thus misinterpreted what I was saying.

If you had been less condescending in the past, without resorting
frequently to terms like rubbish, you might have more people who took
your initial comments seriously. As it is, myself and several others,
have a hard time doing that.
>
>>I remember another example where you were saying in
>>comp.dcom.modems.cable that it was likely that cable providers could
>>meter bandwidth in the U.S. to cover abuse from streaming media hogs,
>>etc.
>
>That's not what I said about metering -- you're again misinterpreting what
>I was saying.

I just went back and Googled the discussion and there were several
instances where you were saying upstream metering would become common.
That hasn't happened, although upstream cap relaxations haven't moved
in tandem with downstream. However, that's really the only thing that
separates a consumer user from a business user.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 1:08:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <5562i0tpknedsjjartlnqu9o8c39n2o70b@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:24:30
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:50:27 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Not changes in the *terms of the merger agreement* ...
>
>But if you look at the original statement, you jumped all over the
>other poster when they said merger agreements were regularly admended.

Hardly. I said:

Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
modified according to the terms of the agreement.

>That person said NOTHING about significance, only that changes were
>common -- which is very true, if for no other reason than small
>amendments in the share exchange rate, etc.

What Chris actually said was:

A merger is a fluid give and take situation.

As I wrote, it's not, once a definitive agreement has been signed.

>>I didn't say or even imply that -- the context here is changes in the *terms
>>of the merger agreement*, not the businesses themselves, which may indeed
>>change greatly.
>
>But again, those change regularly as well.

I respectfully disagree.

>And you can't exactly say
>the two aren't related. The record writedown that was a result of the
>AOL/TW merger was due to the declining value of assets. While that's
>business related in one way, it's also part ofthe merger. So the two
>issues are very much intertwined.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- the original statement by Chris simply isn't
true.

>[SNIP usual rudeness] As it is, myself and several others,
>have a hard time doing that.

So be it.

>>That's not what I said about metering -- you're again misinterpreting what
>>I was saying.
>
>I just went back and Googled the discussion and there were several
>instances where you were saying upstream metering would become common.
>[SNIP]

Actual citations please.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 1:41:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:


>>>I didn't say or even imply that -- the context here is changes in the *terms
>>>of the merger agreement*, not the businesses themselves, which may indeed
>>>change greatly.
>>
>>But again, those change regularly as well.
>
>I respectfully disagree.

You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.

>>>That's not what I said about metering -- you're again misinterpreting what
>>>I was saying.
>>
>>I just went back and Googled the discussion and there were several
>>instances where you were saying upstream metering would become common.
>>[SNIP]
>
>Actual citations please.

(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
Google Groups search:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=metering+group:comp.d...
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 1:51:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <tka2i0hbcj4qnpium2rvj4bpocgmhc4i5g@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:41:14
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>I respectfully disagree.
>
>You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.

That of course cuts both ways. :-)

>>Actual citations please.
>
>(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
>Google Groups search:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=metering+group:comp.d...

Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
taken seriously (as I'm sure you know:) .

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 5:16:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <tka2i0hbcj4qnpium2rvj4bpocgmhc4i5g@4ax.com> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:41:14
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>I respectfully disagree.
>>
>>You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.
>
>That of course cuts both ways. :-)
>
>>>Actual citations please.
>>
>>(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
>>Google Groups search:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=metering+group:comp.d...
>
>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know:) .

Sorry, Navas, but you don't determine who and who isn't taken
seriously except as it pertains to yourself. You're free to do
whatever you wish in that regard, but as I've said before, I'd be
afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
corner. You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
everywhere you go.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 5:55:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <om14i0164e21qqjh4shjpkt6jabbpmbrbs@4ax.com> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:16:55
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know:) .
>
>Sorry, Navas, but you don't determine who and who isn't taken
>seriously except as it pertains to yourself. You're free to do
>whatever you wish in that regard,

Thank you.

>but as I've said before, I'd be
>afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
>corner.

You might be surprised. :-)

>You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
>everywhere you go.

You're projecting your own attitudes and feelings onto others.
It's bad enough that you presume to lecture others in public,
but surely you don't presume to speak for anyone other than yourself.
Why ... that would be ... condescending. [gasp] :) 

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 5:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <27oUc.8118$54.120622@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >but as I've said before, I'd be
> >afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
> >corner.
>
> You might be surprised. :-)

No doubt he'd overestimate.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 5:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <27oUc.8118$54.120622@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
> >everywhere you go.
>
> You're projecting your own attitudes and feelings onto others.

Did those words actually come out of John Navas's mouth?
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest