FEDs to approve Cingular takeover of AT&T Wireless

[Guest]

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

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/was
hpost/20041023/tc_washpost/a55574_2004oct22>

The $41 billion merger between Cingular Wireless LLC and AT&T Wireless
Services Inc. won approval from the Federal Communications Commission
yesterday, according to federal sources close to the agency, paving the
way for major changes in the lucrative wireless-phone market.

=================

"Potentially lucrative" they should have said. Only Nextel and Verizon
are currently making good money. SprintPCS is still losing money, and
had to merge its wireless division back into Sprint to hide the WLNP
losses, and continuing $$$ losses.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-1C223A.06242623102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...

>
> =================
>
> "Potentially lucrative" they should have said. Only Nextel and Verizon
> are currently making good money. SprintPCS is still losing money, and
> had to merge its wireless division back into Sprint to hide the WLNP
> losses, and continuing $$$ losses.

Sprint PCS made money for the last three quarters- the long distance portion
of the company is what is losing money. The 10Q filings for the last couple
of quarters show this to be very clear. And I'm sorry- can you provide a
link to the article that talks about PCS being folded back into the comapny
to hide WLNP losses.

Please know the facts before you attempt to sound intelligent, troll. I
know that would be a stretch for you, Phillipe.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <jzwick3-1C223A.06242623102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sat, 23 Oct
2004 11:24:58 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/was
>hpost/20041023/tc_washpost/a55574_2004oct22>
>
>The $41 billion merger between Cingular Wireless LLC and AT&T Wireless
>Services Inc. won approval from the Federal Communications Commission
>yesterday, according to federal sources close to the agency, paving the
>way for major changes in the lucrative wireless-phone market.
>
>=================
>
>"Potentially lucrative" they should have said. Only Nextel and Verizon
>are currently making good money. SprintPCS is still losing money, and
>had to merge its wireless division back into Sprint to hide the WLNP
>losses, and continuing $$$ losses.

Cingular has been making good money as well. Operating profit totaled $461
million in the third quarter ended Sept. 30 (albeit down from $488 million in
the same three months a year ago).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <oFued.629$_3.10398@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-1C223A.06242623102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sat, 23 Oct
> 2004 11:24:58 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> ><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=738&e=8&u=/was
> >hpost/20041023/tc_washpost/a55574_2004oct22>
> >
> >The $41 billion merger between Cingular Wireless LLC and AT&T Wireless
> >Services Inc. won approval from the Federal Communications Commission
> >yesterday, according to federal sources close to the agency, paving the
> >way for major changes in the lucrative wireless-phone market.
> >
> >=================
> >
> >"Potentially lucrative" they should have said. Only Nextel and Verizon
> >are currently making good money. SprintPCS is still losing money, and
> >had to merge its wireless division back into Sprint to hide the WLNP
> >losses, and continuing $$$ losses.
>
> Cingular has been making good money as well. Operating profit totaled $461
> million in the third quarter ended Sept. 30 (albeit down from $488 million in
> the same three months a year ago).

Where do you make these numbers up from? Their profit was $145 Million,
not exactly lucrative on revenue of $4.26 billion; I think U.S. Treasury
Bonds pay better.

<http://www.thestreet.com/tech/telecom/10189178.html>

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <jzwick3-4430A8.12391023102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sat, 23 Oct
2004 17:38:56 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <oFued.629$_3.10398@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Cingular has been making good money as well. Operating profit totaled $461
>> million in the third quarter ended Sept. 30 (albeit down from $488 million in
>> the same three months a year ago).
>
>Where do you make these numbers up from? ...

Taken directly from a Cingular press release dated Oct 20, 2004.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <IwEed.683$_3.13956@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-4430A8.12391023102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sat, 23 Oct
> 2004 17:38:56 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <oFued.629$_3.10398@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> Cingular has been making good money as well. Operating profit totaled
> >> $461
> >> million in the third quarter ended Sept. 30 (albeit down from $488 million
> >> in
> >> the same three months a year ago).
> >
> >Where do you make these numbers up from? ...

(Navas maliciously here snips the true numbers.)

>
> Taken directly from a Cingular press release dated Oct 20, 2004.

You misstated gross revenue as net profit.

Strange you snipped out the correct numbers.

Cingular's correct profit was $145 Million,
not exactly lucrative on revenue of $4.26 billion; I think U.S. Treasury
Bonds pay better.

<http://www.thestreet.com/tech/telecom/10189178.html>

Anyone can read the numbers themselves why would you not give the URL??

<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
UL1&STORY=/www/story/10-20-2004/0002289150&EDATE=Oct+20,+2004>

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <jzwick3-2D8407.02094524102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
2004 07:09:31 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <IwEed.683$_3.13956@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <jzwick3-4430A8.12391023102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sat, 23 Oct
>> 2004 17:38:56 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <oFued.629$_3.10398@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Cingular has been making good money as well. Operating profit totaled
>> >> $461
>> >> million in the third quarter ended Sept. 30 (albeit down from $488 million
>> >> in
>> >> the same three months a year ago).
>> >
>> >Where do you make these numbers up from? ...
>
>(Navas maliciously here snips the true numbers.)

1. No malice.

2. My numbers are just as true.

>> Taken directly from a Cingular press release dated Oct 20, 2004.
>
>You misstated gross revenue as net profit.

You misstated what I wrote, especially silly since you quoted it (above):
"Operating profit"

>Strange you snipped out the correct numbers.

My numbers are just as correct.

>Cingular's correct profit was $145 Million,

Cingular's operating profit was $461 million.

>not exactly lucrative on revenue of $4.26 billion;

Financial performance isn't that simple. Start by carefully reading the
entire story below, not just the simple parts.

>I think U.S. Treasury
>Bonds pay better.

Not a valid comparison.

>Anyone can read the numbers themselves why would you not give the URL??
>
><http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
>UL1&STORY=/www/story/10-20-2004/0002289150&EDATE=Oct+20,+2004>

From that link:

Operating income 461

As I wrote. Case closed.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <qRIed.708$_3.14513@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Cingular's correct profit was $145 Million,
>
> Cingular's operating profit was $461 million.



Nope, gross revenue = operating income

Net profit was $145.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-30848A.06405924102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <qRIed.708$_3.14513@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >Cingular's correct profit was $145 Million,
> >
> > Cingular's operating profit was $461 million.
>
>
>
> Nope, gross revenue = operating income
>

Nope- as usual, your wrong. They are not tht e same thng. We can argue
back and forth about it, but you always lose. John is right here.

> Net profit was $145.

John, you do recognize Jack, don't you?

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <jzwick3-30848A.06405924102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
2004 11:40:45 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <qRIed.708$_3.14513@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Cingular's correct profit was $145 Million,
>>
>> Cingular's operating profit was $461 million.
>
>Nope, gross revenue = operating income
>
>Net profit was $145.

And operating profit was $461 million.
See <http://www.bized.ac.uk/dataserv/extel/notes/oprof-ex.htm> for the meaning
of the term.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <mPOdndVU6uBPI-bcRVn-ow@adelphia.com> on Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:40:30 -0600,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>
>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jzwick3-30848A.06405924102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> In article <qRIed.708$_3.14513@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Cingular's correct profit was $145 Million,
>> >
>> > Cingular's operating profit was $461 million.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, gross revenue = operating income
>>
>
>Nope- as usual, your wrong. They are not tht e same thng. We can argue
>back and forth about it, but you always lose. John is right here.
>
>> Net profit was $145.
>
>John, you do recognize Jack, don't you?

Of course.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>