Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Say goodbye, then hello to AT&T phones"

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 11:32:52 AM

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

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/24/cingular_attwir...;

Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
cellular services under the brand.

...

By the end of the year, when the merger is expected to be completed,
the two largest US cellphone carriers - Verizon and Cingular - will
not only be former Baby Bells, but two synthetic brands based on very
bad puns.

[MORE]

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;

More about : goodbye phones

Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:37:21 PM

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

> Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> cellular services under the brand.

I think this is a result of AT&T protecting it's brand / cingular not
willing to lease the brand name, don't think we will see a new AT&T
wireless anytime soon. Unless some new spectrum is found we may see fewer
national networks in the future. Could AT&T resell another provider's
wireless under it's name yes, but only where not taking customers from that
provider.
August 26, 2004 11:32:47 PM

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

"Stanley Reynolds"

>Could AT&T resell another provider's wireless under it's name yes, but only
where not taking customers from that provider.
>

AT&T has already concluded an agreement with SPRINT PCS to resell Sprint's
network under the AT&T brand, just like Virgin Mobile does now. AT&T has
stated that they intend to start operations immediately upon regaining their
brand and logos back.

Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.

AT&T will do their own customer service and equipment sales under the
agreement. They will also conclude their own roaming agreements and will do
their own billing. Sprint will provide access to their network on a
wholesale basis.

As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as a
result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming) charge, I
anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to remain competitive.
That can only mean good things for all cellular customers, as AT&T will hold
their competitors' feet to the fire.

AT&T said that they would start up "the day after" the completion of the
merger. It is unclear to me exactly what that definition is, but we can
expect AT&T to ramp up very quickly once their logos and trademarks come
back under their control. For all I know, their new AT&T-branded phones are
already sitting in warehouses, ready to be put into service.

AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility. If
they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's network--not
a start-up operation--with which to service their customers. Frankly I
would be surprised to learn that AT&T will remain a virtual wireless
company, because they can't really control their own destiny while relying
upon another company to provide it with a network backbone. But, as a
short-term solution, the deal with Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has
a ready-made wireless network that they can sell beginning on day #1.

I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I am
glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless industry, and
I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can always return to the AT&T
brand if I don't like the way Cingular treats me when they acquire my
account.

There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out, but
in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the consumer.
How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under $50 bucks a
month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .

Cheers
Related resources
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 11:32:48 PM

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

> AT&T has already concluded an agreement with SPRINT PCS to resell
> Sprint's network under the AT&T brand, just like Virgin Mobile does
> now. AT&T has stated that they intend to start operations immediately
> upon regaining their brand and logos back.

I hope they do well selling prepaid service but Virgin does have a head
start.

> AT&T will do their own customer service and equipment sales under the
> agreement. They will also conclude their own roaming agreements and
> will do their own billing. Sprint will provide access to their
> network on a wholesale basis.

Now if they could get a roaming agreement with Verizon they may catch
Virgin Mobile. But then Verizon does have their own prepaid service to
protect.

>
> As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as
> a result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming)
> charge, I anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to
> remain competitive. That can only mean good things for all cellular
> customers, as AT&T will hold their competitors' feet to the fire.
>

Yes customers can be gained with low prices but these same customers are
the first to leave for an even lower price.

<snip>
> AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
> scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility.

And Cingular will sell back the spectrum ?

> If they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's
> network--not a start-up operation--with which to service their
> customers. Frankly I would be surprised to learn that AT&T will
> remain a virtual wireless company, because they can't really control
> their own destiny while relying upon another company to provide it
> with a network backbone. But, as a short-term solution, the deal with
> Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has a ready-made wireless network
> that they can sell beginning on day #1.

And what did Cingular buy ?

>
> I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I
> am glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless
> industry, and I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can
> always return to the AT&T brand if I don't like the way Cingular
> treats me when they acquire my account.
>
> There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out,
> but in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the
> consumer. How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under
> $50 bucks a month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .
>
> Cheers
>
>

Well the glass could be half full. It is my hope that what ever returns
as AT&T wireless is a great company but I'am sure they will not follow
the lost cost leader the second time around.
August 27, 2004 3:53:40 AM

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

Jeremy wrote:

[....]
>
> Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
>

Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
show.


[....]>


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 7:31:06 AM

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

ATT might be a virtual carrier, but nothing says that they will limit
themselves to prepaid. I'd note that Virgin UK has started offering monthly
bundled minute plans and they are a virtual carrier. I think the Virgin
comparison was solely because Virgin piggy backs on Sprint. Perhaps the
better comparison is T-Mobile on Cingular in the California market or MCI's
failed attempt at mobile phones.

I'd be shocked if ATT limits itself to prepaid. One thing we know is that
the new ATT will be based on CDMA technology. ATT might remain a virtual
carrier but eyeball CDMA licenses that are attractive. I'm not sure how
many licenses Qwest owns, but they seem like a guard target? Alltell might
be one as well. Also, ATT might start negotiating with Verizon for a
similar virtual carrier status in some markets.

One possibility that occured to me as I was writing this message is that ATT
might decide to be a virtual carrier on CDMA, but launch a "from the ground"
3g network keeping the virtual carrier status with Sprint as it builds its
footprint, much like 3 has done in the UK.

Obviously, this is all speculation.

Stu

"Stanley Reynolds" <trash_stanley_reynolds@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9551AFFC895E7trashstanleyreynold@216.196.97.142...
> > AT&T has already concluded an agreement with SPRINT PCS to resell
> > Sprint's network under the AT&T brand, just like Virgin Mobile does
> > now. AT&T has stated that they intend to start operations immediately
> > upon regaining their brand and logos back.
>
> I hope they do well selling prepaid service but Virgin does have a head
> start.
>
> > AT&T will do their own customer service and equipment sales under the
> > agreement. They will also conclude their own roaming agreements and
> > will do their own billing. Sprint will provide access to their
> > network on a wholesale basis.
>
> Now if they could get a roaming agreement with Verizon they may catch
> Virgin Mobile. But then Verizon does have their own prepaid service to
> protect.
>
> >
> > As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as
> > a result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming)
> > charge, I anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to
> > remain competitive. That can only mean good things for all cellular
> > customers, as AT&T will hold their competitors' feet to the fire.
> >
>
> Yes customers can be gained with low prices but these same customers are
> the first to leave for an even lower price.
>
> <snip>
> > AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
> > scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility.
>
> And Cingular will sell back the spectrum ?
>
> > If they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's
> > network--not a start-up operation--with which to service their
> > customers. Frankly I would be surprised to learn that AT&T will
> > remain a virtual wireless company, because they can't really control
> > their own destiny while relying upon another company to provide it
> > with a network backbone. But, as a short-term solution, the deal with
> > Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has a ready-made wireless network
> > that they can sell beginning on day #1.
>
> And what did Cingular buy ?
>
> >
> > I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I
> > am glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless
> > industry, and I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can
> > always return to the AT&T brand if I don't like the way Cingular
> > treats me when they acquire my account.
> >
> > There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out,
> > but in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the
> > consumer. How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under
> > $50 bucks a month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
>
> Well the glass could be half full. It is my hope that what ever returns
> as AT&T wireless is a great company but I'am sure they will not follow
> the lost cost leader the second time around.
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 7:53:28 AM

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

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

In <zVqXc.4657$Y%3.2303@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Thu, 26 Aug 2004
19:32:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.

I haven't seen the license agreement (have you?), but I'd be surprised if the
licensing rights didn't remain with a merged company (i.e., Cingular),
although I can't imagine that Cingular would actually want to keep using the
AT&T name.

>As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as a
>result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming) charge, I
>anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to remain competitive.
>That can only mean good things for all cellular customers, as AT&T will hold
>their competitors' feet to the fire.

Not necessarily -- AT&T was aggressive on nationwide coverage, but not on
price, and I personally doubt that it will now be a price leader. Frankly,
I don't see this as having much effect on the market for the foreseeable
future, in part due to SprintPCS spectrum limitations.

>AT&T said that they would start up "the day after" the completion of the
>merger. It is unclear to me exactly what that definition is, but we can
>expect AT&T to ramp up very quickly once their logos and trademarks come
>back under their control. For all I know, their new AT&T-branded phones are
>already sitting in warehouses, ready to be put into service.

I personally think it will be a "soft" launch. AT&T is known for announcing
things with great fanfare, and then changing course.

>AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
>scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility.

How so? Where would it get the spectrum?

>If
>they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's network--not
>a start-up operation--with which to service their customers. Frankly I
>would be surprised to learn that AT&T will remain a virtual wireless
>company, because they can't really control their own destiny while relying
>upon another company to provide it with a network backbone. But, as a
>short-term solution, the deal with Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has
>a ready-made wireless network that they can sell beginning on day #1.

But not with much prospect of making much money, which I think makes it much
less than a "masterful stroke" -- more like another lame idea from AT&T. It's
just withdrawn from residential service due to a similar squeeze.

>I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I am
>glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless industry, and
>I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can always return to the AT&T
>brand if I don't like the way Cingular treats me when they acquire my
>account.

Why? Looks to me like AT&T will be way last in the market for the foreseeable
future -- makes more sense to go with SprintPCS.

>There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out, but
>in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the consumer.
>How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under $50 bucks a
>month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .

I can't. Margins are too thin now, and spectrum is too tight.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 7:56:58 AM

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

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

In <_VxXc.5080$Y%3.3390@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 27 Aug 2004
03:31:06 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote:

>I'd be shocked if ATT limits itself to prepaid.

Me too.

>One thing we know is that
>the new ATT will be based on CDMA technology. ATT might remain a virtual
>carrier but eyeball CDMA licenses that are attractive.

Licenses are for spectrum, not technology.

>I'm not sure how
>many licenses Qwest owns, but they seem like a guard target? Alltell might
>be one as well.

I don't think there's enough non-3G spectrum available to matter.

>Also, ATT might start negotiating with Verizon for a
>similar virtual carrier status in some markets.

Why would Verizon do that? It's in a much stronger position that SprintPCS.

>One possibility that occured to me as I was writing this message is that ATT
>might decide to be a virtual carrier on CDMA, but launch a "from the ground"
>3g network keeping the virtual carrier status with Sprint as it builds its
>footprint, much like 3 has done in the UK.

Possible, but VERY expensive, so I personally doubt it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
August 27, 2004 9:22:06 AM

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

"Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
news:_VxXc.5080$Y%3.3390@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> ATT might be a virtual carrier, but nothing says that they will limit
> themselves to prepaid.

AT&T will NOT limit themselves to prepaid. They already announced that they
will do their own billing and customer service. They are buying network
access from Sprint. They are not buying Sprint's customer service, or
Sprint's roaming agreements or Sprint's billing.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 9:22:07 AM

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

In article <2yzXc.5170$Y%3.4626@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

> AT&T will NOT limit themselves to prepaid. They already announced that they
> will do their own billing and customer service. They are buying network
> access from Sprint. They are not buying Sprint's customer service, or
> Sprint's roaming agreements or Sprint's billing.

Whose customer service will they be buying? They're certainly incapable
of providing it themselves...

--
spam delenda est
August 27, 2004 9:24:47 AM

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

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:cgmen5$2v2@library2.airnews.net...
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> [....]
> >
> > Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
> >
>
> Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
> ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
> show.
>

The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that the
AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was what I
meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name. Actually, NO
ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos from
ATTWS.

Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
"Cingular."
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 9:33:37 AM

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

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

In <zAzXc.5171$Y%3.1769@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 27 Aug 2004
05:24:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>news:cgmen5$2v2@library2.airnews.net...
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>
>> [....]
>> >
>> > Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
>> >
>>
>> Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
>> ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
>> show.
>
>The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that the
>AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was what I
>meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name. Actually, NO
>ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos from
>ATTWS.

This is technically a merger, not a transfer, so a non-transfer restriction
might not apply, depending on how the license is written. Have you seen the
actual terms?

>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>"Cingular."

Cingular is actually a joint venture of SBC and BellSouth.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 10:30:34 AM

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

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

In <260820042320229803%bill@caradoc.org> on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:20:22 -0700,
John Groseclose <bill@caradoc.org> wrote:

>In article <2yzXc.5170$Y%3.4626@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T will NOT limit themselves to prepaid. They already announced that they
>> will do their own billing and customer service. They are buying network
>> access from Sprint. They are not buying Sprint's customer service, or
>> Sprint's roaming agreements or Sprint's billing.
>
>Whose customer service will they be buying? They're certainly incapable
>of providing it themselves...

AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 10:30:35 AM

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

In article <eyAXc.10014$54.143412@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that AT&T itself is the
inspiration for the original "Ernestine the Operator" sketch by Lily
Tomlin.

--
spam delenda est
August 27, 2004 11:00:41 AM

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

Jeremy wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:cgmen5$2v2@library2.airnews.net...
>
>>Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>>Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
>>>
>>
>>Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
>>ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
>>show.
>>
>
>
> The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that the
> AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was what I
> meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name. Actually, NO
> ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos from
> ATTWS.
>
> Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
> don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
> "Cingular."
>

Cingular Wireless is a jointly owned company between SBC and Bell South,
and as usual, the parents named their child. Presumably this was
intended to distinguish their wireless operations from their core
landline business.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
August 27, 2004 1:05:15 PM

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

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:24:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com>
wrote:

>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>"Cingular."

Probably because the "Jacks" man (not to be confused with Hugh
Jackman) is a cute funky spokesobject.

Just yesterday I was accosted by the yellow AOL mascot on Broadway who
was trying to hawk AOL broadband. I'd be all for a death match
between the AOL guy and the MSN butterfly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:06:30 PM

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

ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are leasing
back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to the
TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through ATT.

My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS. Perhaps ATT tried
out ATT One as a means of testing the waters before rolling out a nationwide
program.


"Stanley Reynolds" <trash_stanley_reynolds@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95517598ADC8Ftrashstanleyreynold@216.196.97.142...
> > Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> > will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> > with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> > cellular services under the brand.
>
> I think this is a result of AT&T protecting it's brand / cingular not
> willing to lease the brand name, don't think we will see a new AT&T
> wireless anytime soon. Unless some new spectrum is found we may see fewer
> national networks in the future. Could AT&T resell another provider's
> wireless under it's name yes, but only where not taking customers from
that
> provider.
August 27, 2004 7:19:49 PM

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

"John Groseclose" <bill@caradoc.org> wrote in message
news:260820042320229803%bill@caradoc.org...

>
> Whose customer service will they be buying? They're certainly incapable
> of providing it themselves...
>

They will be providing it themselves, not buying it from Sprint.

ATT's customer service--before they spun off ATTWS--was pretty good. And,
despite what others have posted about the current ATTWS' customer service, I
have always been lucky enough to have had pleasant experiences with them.

But the NEW AT&T wireless will have AT&T customer service--provided by the
"original" AT&T, not by the current unrelated company known as ATTWS. ATTWS
will cease to exist after the Cingular acquisition.
August 27, 2004 7:23:22 PM

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

"Carl Keehn" <carlkeehn@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:WAEXc.521874$Gx4.300259@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are leasing
> back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
> distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to the
> TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through
ATT.
>
> My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS.


Are you certain of this? AT&T sold/leased the rights to their trademarks,
brand and logos to ATTWS when they spun it off. So how can they be using
those things now?

Maybe you are being BILLED by AT&T and your wireless service is
subcontracted out to the unrelated company, ATTWS. That would seem more
likely.

What will happen when AT&T begins offering their virtual wireless service
using Sprint's network? TDMA phones will be incompatible with Sprint PCS'
facilities. Surely AT&T will not be offering two incompatible services,
will they?
August 27, 2004 7:25:36 PM

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

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:cgn7np$jvq@library2.airnews.net...
> >
> Cingular Wireless is a jointly owned company between SBC and Bell South,
> and as usual, the parents named their child. Presumably this was
> intended to distinguish their wireless operations from their core
> landline business.
>

One would think that they would get more mileage by using a songle name for
everything--like Verizon does. But now that you mention that it is not
owned solely by SBC, it becomes easier to understand. Bell South might not
like their half of the investment being named after their partner, rather
than themselves.
August 27, 2004 7:32:47 PM

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

"John Groseclose" <bill@caradoc.org> wrote in message
news:270820040603160292%bill@caradoc.org...
> In article <eyAXc.10014$54.143412@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.
>
> I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that AT&T itself is the
> inspiration for the original "Ernestine the Operator" sketch by Lily
> Tomlin.
>

Well, if you are suggesting that AT&T is substandard, I would remind you
that they were the ones primarily responsible for universal telephone
service in this country. They had monopolistic pricing, but they did offer
excellent service.

They were a victim of technology evolution. Who ever thought that we would
have so many long distance carriers--only to see their product priced down
to zero only two decades after divestiture?

I remember when everybody was scrambling to take AT&Ts long distance
customers. Now I get free long distance on my wireless phone. Not the
$10/hour "Reach Out America" or MCI "Friends & Family" rates--but completely
FREE.

Imagine the frustration of having built a huge long distance backbone, only
to see your service produce virtually no revenue!

How long before GSM and CDMA are obsolete, and all the investment made in
those technologies becomes obsolete? Who will invest in technology
companies when the prospects of making a profit are so uncertain?

Given what AT&T has been through over the past 20 years, I applaud the fact
that they have managed to continue to exist. Most other companies would
have given up the ghost by now.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 7:32:48 PM

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

In article <zuIXc.853$6o3.267@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Jeremy
<jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

> "John Groseclose" <bill@caradoc.org> wrote in message
> news:270820040603160292%bill@caradoc.org...
> > In article <eyAXc.10014$54.143412@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
> > <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> > > AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.
> >
> > I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that AT&T itself is the
> > inspiration for the original "Ernestine the Operator" sketch by Lily
> > Tomlin.
> >
>
> Well, if you are suggesting that AT&T is substandard, I would remind you
> that they were the ones primarily responsible for universal telephone
> service in this country. They had monopolistic pricing, but they did offer
> excellent service.

Far from it. ATT *service* is exemplary - it's just that their
*customer service* is still indicative of their old "We're the Phone
Company - we don't HAVE to care" mindset.

ATTWS, on the other hand, apparently lacks the competency to manage
their own SMS-blasting network.

--
spam delenda est
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 9:54:35 PM

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

I assume that ATT's new wireless provider will not be called ATT Wireless.
ATT One sounds like as good a name as any.

With respect to the rebranding of ATT Wireless, I note that for a long time
there were rumors floating that ATTWS was going to be come "M-Life." I also
note that Rogers has dropped the ATT name from their wireless service.


"Carl Keehn" <carlkeehn@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:WAEXc.521874$Gx4.300259@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are leasing
> back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
> distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to the
> TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through
ATT.
>
> My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS. Perhaps ATT
tried
> out ATT One as a means of testing the waters before rolling out a
nationwide
> program.
>
>
> "Stanley Reynolds" <trash_stanley_reynolds@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95517598ADC8Ftrashstanleyreynold@216.196.97.142...
> > > Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> > > will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> > > with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> > > cellular services under the brand.
> >
> > I think this is a result of AT&T protecting it's brand / cingular not
> > willing to lease the brand name, don't think we will see a new AT&T
> > wireless anytime soon. Unless some new spectrum is found we may see
fewer
> > national networks in the future. Could AT&T resell another provider's
> > wireless under it's name yes, but only where not taking customers from
> that
> > provider.
>
>
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 4:46:09 AM

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

>AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
>scratch over the next 5 years

How can they - they do not have the spectrum nor is any available.


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 7:21:56 AM

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

In article <MxUXc.108$CY.11@fe35.usenetserver.com>,
"Killer Madness" <killer@nospam.net> wrote:

> I've been through the ringer with this company,

That sounds more painful than having been through the wringer with the
company.

(Of course, young people today know only telephones and the like; they
know nothing of hand washing clothes with washboards to wash and
wringers to wring the water out of them...)
August 28, 2004 10:24:08 AM

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

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:21:56 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>That sounds more painful than having been through the wringer with the
>company.

The wringer??

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 3:27:21 PM

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

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:KlIXc.846$6o3.421@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Carl Keehn" <carlkeehn@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:WAEXc.521874$Gx4.300259@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are
leasing
> > back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
> > distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to
the
> > TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through
> ATT.
> >
> > My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS.
>
>
> Are you certain of this? AT&T sold/leased the rights to their trademarks,
> brand and logos to ATTWS when they spun it off. So how can they be using
> those things now?

Yes, I am certain of this. They have been offering this program for a bit
less than a year now. It is only in limited areas at the present


>
> Maybe you are being BILLED by AT&T and your wireless service is
> subcontracted out to the unrelated company, ATTWS. That would seem more
> likely.
>
> What will happen when AT&T begins offering their virtual wireless service
> using Sprint's network? TDMA phones will be incompatible with Sprint PCS'
> facilities. Surely AT&T will not be offering two incompatible services,
> will they?


I have been wondering that myself. I guess I will find out in a few months.
Most likely, those on ATT One will continue with ATT One for the foreseeable
future, I would suspect that the TDMA spectrum was leased for an extended
period of time. When ATT rolled out their Sprint service, they would then
offer that one nationwide, perhaps they would "Encourage" ATT One users to
migrate over, similar to the conversion from Digital to GSM.

Carl
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 3:29:24 PM

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

In article <er11j010o89hrg4cnfes1jspvpbaoliujm@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >That sounds more painful than having been through the wringer with the
> >company.
>
> The wringer??

The wringer. Which is what he meant. Instead, he said "the
ringer"--which is meaningless.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 5:15:53 PM

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

John,

All this assumes that the merger will go through.

Chip

John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/24/cingular_attwir...;
>
> Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> cellular services under the brand.
>
> ...
>
> By the end of the year, when the merger is expected to be completed,
> the two largest US cellphone carriers - Verizon and Cingular - will
> not only be former Baby Bells, but two synthetic brands based on very
> bad puns.
>
> [MORE]
>
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:26:04 AM

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

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

True, but that seems to be a pretty safe assumption.

In <10j6o63tegh5v1b@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:15:53 -0400,
Ralph Blach <rblach@NOSPAMintrex..XXXnet> wrote:

>John,
>
>All this assumes that the merger will go through.
>
>Chip
>
>John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/24/cingular_attwir...;
>>
>> Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
>> will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
>> with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
>> cellular services under the brand.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> By the end of the year, when the merger is expected to be completed,
>> the two largest US cellphone carriers - Verizon and Cingular - will
>> not only be former Baby Bells, but two synthetic brands based on very
>> bad puns.
>>
>> [MORE]
>>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 1:39:44 PM

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

Jeremy Wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:cgmen5$2v2@library2.airnews.net...
> > Jeremy wrote:
> >
> > [....]
> > >
> > > Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
> > >
> >
> > Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping
> the
> > ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the
> entire
> > show.
> >
>
> The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that
> the
> AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was
> what I
> meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name.
> Actually, NO
> ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos
> from
> ATTWS.
>
> Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why
> they
> don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
> "Cingular."

As a former ATTWS employee, I can tell you that is is entirely correct.
ATTWS at spin-off leased the brand through a specified number of years -
if memory serves, I believe the lease was through 2005. At the end of
that time ATTWS would either have to change their name and logo or
merge with another company under their brand according to the agreement
with AT&T. Furthermore, Cingular is not only owned by SBC but is a joint
enterprise with BellSouth, they decided upon the a distinct moniker to
keep the identity of the wireless branch separate from both parent
companies.


--
mpulis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mpulis's Profile: http://cellphoneforums.net/member.php?action=getinfo&us...
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t146013
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:20:42 AM

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

>>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why
>>they
>>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>>"Cingular."
>
>
> As a former ATTWS employee, I can tell you that is is entirely correct.
> ATTWS at spin-off leased the brand through a specified number of years -
> if memory serves, I believe the lease was through 2005. At the end of
> that time ATTWS would either have to change their name and logo or
> merge with another company under their brand according to the agreement
> with AT&T. Furthermore, Cingular is not only owned by SBC but is a joint
> enterprise with BellSouth, they decided upon the a distinct moniker to
> keep the identity of the wireless branch separate from both parent
> companies.

Which makes sense. Verizon Wirless is a joint operation between
Vodafone and Verizon Communications.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 9:59:13 AM

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

>>>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why
>>>they
>>>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>>>"Cingular."

They are owned by SBC AND Bell South. I don't remeber the percentages but they
won't ever be SBC Cellular or Bell South Cellular.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:46:59 PM

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

"John S." <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> wrote in message
news:20050122015913.16817.00000152@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >>>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why
> >>>they
> >>>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
> >>>"Cingular."
>
> They are owned by SBC AND Bell South. I don't remeber the percentages but
they
> won't ever be SBC Cellular or Bell South Cellular.


60% SBC and 40% Bell South.

--
JJS
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 6:34:03 PM

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

John S. wrote:
>>>>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why
>>>>they
>>>>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>>>>"Cingular."
>>>
>
> They are owned by SBC AND Bell South. I don't remeber the percentages but they
> won't ever be SBC Cellular or Bell South Cellular.


I think it's something like 45% BellSouth and 55% SBC. I think Verizon
Wireless is 55% Verizon Communications and 45% Vodafone.
!