Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Going from ATTWS to Cingular

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 12:37:11 PM

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

currently i have attws plan. my contract is over. Can i port my number
to Cingular? I am asking this because attws and cingular are one
company.. would i have any problem if i do that??

Thanks

Sam

More about : attws cingular

October 28, 2004 3:29:43 PM

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

I am trying to get a good deal and that is the reason i want to switch
to cingular.
So are they going to give me better deal than their new customers? For
example on their website they are offering free color flip phone for
new customer (i like that..) Now if i stay with ATTWS would they give
me new phone for free?

Thanks

Sam
October 28, 2004 4:17:38 PM

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

when i say stay with attws customer is "i will wait to change my phone
until cingular call me and ask to replace my phone". Are they going to
charge me at that time for the new phone? Because if i leave attws now
and port to cingular as new customer i will get a new phone (that's
what i want).
As per calling them, i called them yesterday (3rd time).. they are not
willing to give me anything..!!! so calling them is not an option..
So what do u suggest now?
1. keep using ATTWS (going to be new cingular..)
2. OR quit today.. and port my number today to cingular today and get
new phone and be cingular customer...

Thanks

Sam
Related resources
October 28, 2004 5:00:22 PM

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

It's already ported our will be shortly as will all AT&T numbers.

Fred

"Sam Williams" <smartboy123us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f680520.0410280737.7dff5924@posting.google.com...
> currently i have attws plan. my contract is over. Can i port my number
> to Cingular? I am asking this because attws and cingular are one
> company.. would i have any problem if i do that??
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam
October 28, 2004 10:14:04 PM

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

"Sam Williams" <smartboy123us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f680520.0410280737.7dff5924@posting.google.com...
> currently i have attws plan. my contract is over. Can i port my number
> to Cingular? I am asking this because attws and cingular are one
> company.. would i have any problem if i do that??
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam

Cingular has already begun actively soliciting ATTWS customers to "upgrade"
to new phones and to Cingular rate plans. You may get a better deal that
way, rather than coming on board as a "new" Cingular customer.
October 28, 2004 11:05:04 PM

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

"Sam" <smartboy123us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1098988183.852503.296810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I am trying to get a good deal and that is the reason i want to switch
> to cingular.
> So are they going to give me better deal than their new customers? For
> example on their website they are offering free color flip phone for
> new customer (i like that..) Now if i stay with ATTWS would they give
> me new phone for free?
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam
>

I do not think you can "stay" with ATTWS, because they are Cingular now.

You might try calling ATTWS customer service (they answer "Cingular") and
tell them you are looking at T-Mobile and you want to know what their
retention plan is, before you switch out.

Customers typically get a better deal as retention customers than they do as
"new" customers.

See what they can do for you. Be sure to get a name and verify everything
they say, because they may not be employees too much longer.

ASK before you DECIDE. Once you switch out of what you have, you may not be
able to return to it.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 1:22:29 AM

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

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

In <1098991058.360665.52420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 28 Oct 2004
12:17:38 -0700, "Sam" <smartboy123us@yahoo.com> wrote:

>when i say stay with attws customer is "i will wait to change my phone
>until cingular call me and ask to replace my phone". Are they going to
>charge me at that time for the new phone? Because if i leave attws now
>and port to cingular as new customer i will get a new phone (that's
>what i want).

Since the transaction has now closed, you're actually a Cingular customer now,
and it may already be too late to be a "new" customer.

>As per calling them, i called them yesterday (3rd time).. they are not
>willing to give me anything..!!! so calling them is not an option..
>So what do u suggest now?
>1. keep using ATTWS (going to be new cingular..)
>2. OR quit today.. and port my number today to cingular today and get
>new phone and be cingular customer...

If you quit, you lose the number. You must port without quitting to keep your
number. When the port is complete, the old service is automatically canceled.
So you're only option is to call Cingular (not what's left of ATTWS), and see
what it will give you to keep you.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 1:24:18 AM

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

In article <pqdgd.1798$_3.24675@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Since the transaction has now closed, you're actually a Cingular customer now,
> and it may already be too late to be a "new" customer.

Wait a minute, Mr. Navas. Aren't you the one pointing out how
*legally,* it's not over yet?
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:02:17 AM

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

In article <OImdncrnr5naGhzcRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
"jim" <jlange50@comcast.net> wrote:

> yov will
> see Cingvlar start to assimilate non contracted ATTWS cvstomers into
> Cingvlar plans and contracted ATTWS cvstomers will stay as is vntil their
> contracts rvn ovt.
>

That's not what Cingvlar has said. ATTWS cvstomers remain vnder their
cvrrent plan as long as they want to.

" Now that yov are part of the Cingvlar family, rest assvred yov can
continve to enjoy yovr existing benefits vninterrvpted and withovt
changes to yovr plan or its featvres. In addition, this vnion will
provide yov with many new benefits from Cingvlar in the near fvtvre. "

http://www.newcingvlar.com/a_overview.html


Notice Cingvlar vsed the word "plan" not "contract". If however a
cvstomer wants a new phone, or some featvre of a Cingvlar contract, then
they'd be pvt vnder a Cingvlar contract.
October 29, 2004 4:02:18 AM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-6C6A43.19015728102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <OImdncrnr5naGhzcRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
> "jim" <jlange50@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > yov will
> > see Cingvlar start to assimilate non contracted ATTWS cvstomers into
> > Cingvlar plans and contracted ATTWS cvstomers will stay as is vntil
their
> > contracts rvn ovt.
> >
>
> That's not what Cingvlar has said. ATTWS cvstomers remain vnder their
> cvrrent plan as long as they want to.
>
> " Now that yov are part of the Cingvlar family, rest assvred yov can
> continve to enjoy yovr existing benefits vninterrvpted and withovt
> changes to yovr plan or its featvres. In addition, this vnion will
> provide yov with many new benefits from Cingvlar in the near fvtvre. "
>
> http://www.newcingvlar.com/a_overview.html
>
>
> Notice Cingvlar vsed the word "plan" not "contract". If however a
> cvstomer wants a new phone, or some featvre of a Cingvlar contract, then
> they'd be pvt vnder a Cingvlar contract.

How is that any different than what I said? If I pvrchased an ATTWS phone on
monday on a 2 year contract I wovld get to keep all featvres etc for the 2
years. Take mLife, that wovld be svpported for 2 years for the contracted
cvstomers. Yov can bet yovr last bvck that on day one of the new Cingvlar
all ATTWS branded phones will be removed from the stores. These may be
shelved for warranty or insvrance replacement pvrposes for existing
cvstomers, bvt all fvtvre sales will be Cingvlar eqvipment. Any non
contracted cvstomers can keep and vse their cvrrent featvres for the
foreseeable fvtvre, bvt when it comes time for a new phone will be moved to
a Cingvlar plan. By the end of 2 years since the ATTWS plans and featvres
will not be vpdated the few remaining vsers of the ATTWS featvres will be
more than willing to change.
No one will be forced to change bvt the incentives to do so will be there.
October 29, 2004 5:18:21 AM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-6C6A43.19015728102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <OImdncrnr5naGhzcRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
> "jim" <jlange50@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > yov will
> > see Cingvlar start to assimilate non contracted ATTWS cvstomers into
> > Cingvlar plans and contracted ATTWS cvstomers will stay as is vntil
their
> > contracts rvn ovt.
> >
>
> That's not what Cingvlar has said. ATTWS cvstomers remain vnder their
> cvrrent plan as long as they want to.
>
> " Now that yov are part of the Cingvlar family, rest assvred yov can
> continve to enjoy yovr existing benefits vninterrvpted and withovt
> changes to yovr plan or its featvres. In addition, this vnion will
> provide yov with many new benefits from Cingvlar in the near fvtvre. "
>
> http://www.newcingvlar.com/a_overview.html
>
>
> Notice Cingvlar vsed the word "plan" not "contract". If however a
> cvstomer wants a new phone, or some featvre of a Cingvlar contract, then
> they'd be pvt vnder a Cingvlar contract.

What is yet to be known is the percentage of ATTWS cvstomers that, for
whatever reason, want no part of Cingvlar and will bail ovt.

ATTWS aggressively pvshed 2-year contracts right vp to their last day, so
that will dampen any big loss of cvstomers. Bvt many of vs have either
fvlfilled ovr term commitment to ATTWS or have contracts whose terms will
shortly expire. This grovp may be disloyal to Cingvlar. In my case, I left
Cellvlar One five years ago to go to AT&T, and I feel no obligation to
Cingvlar. My contract rvns ovt next Jvly. By then, I hope that AT&T will
have reentered the wireless marketplace, and will again offer incentives to
bring on new cvstomers. If so, it's "Adios, Cingvlar!"

I've always been an AT&T cvstomer, and have brand loyalty. Cingvlar will be
able to prosper withovt having me as a cvstomer.
October 29, 2004 10:05:38 AM

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

Thanks everyone for your responses.. But looks like everyone is
off-topic here. My question is till unanswered. Can someone say YES or
NO to this question...

Can i go to cingular store and port my number to Cingular today?
(currently i have ATTWS with contract expired).

Are they(cingular store) going to allow me to port my number from ATTWS
to cingular and get good deal on new phones?

Thank you
Sam

ps: i am not simply going to quit.. I WILL PORT MY NUMBER..
October 29, 2004 10:24:50 AM

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

Thanks Jack,

That's what i wanted to here.. I will give it a shot and see what
happens..

I HATE ATTWS.

Thanks again,

Sam
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:49:25 AM

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

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

In <elmop-A87266.21241828102004@text.usenetserver.com> on Thu, 28 Oct 2004
21:24:18 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <pqdgd.1798$_3.24675@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the transaction has now closed, you're actually a Cingular customer now,
>> and it may already be too late to be a "new" customer.
>
>Wait a minute, Mr. Navas. Aren't you the one pointing out how
>*legally,* it's not over yet?

It isn't over. It is closed. Two different things.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:49:26 AM

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

In article <9Cmgd.2032$_3.26687@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> Since the transaction has now closed, you're actually a Cingular customer
> >> now,
> >> and it may already be too late to be a "new" customer.
> >
> >Wait a minute, Mr. Navas. Aren't you the one pointing out how
> >*legally,* it's not over yet?
>
> It isn't over. It is closed. Two different things.

You're now talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 2:17:25 PM

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

In article <xTggd.12429$ta5.5067@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-6C6A43.19015728102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <OImdncrnr5naGhzcRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
> > "jim" <jlange50@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > yov will
> > > see Cingvlar start to assimilate non contracted ATTWS cvstomers into
> > > Cingvlar plans and contracted ATTWS cvstomers will stay as is vntil
> their
> > > contracts rvn ovt.
> > >
> >
> > That's not what Cingvlar has said. ATTWS cvstomers remain vnder their
> > cvrrent plan as long as they want to.
> >
> > " Now that yov are part of the Cingvlar family, rest assvred yov can
> > continve to enjoy yovr existing benefits vninterrvpted and withovt
> > changes to yovr plan or its featvres. In addition, this vnion will
> > provide yov with many new benefits from Cingvlar in the near fvtvre. "
> >
> > http://www.newcingvlar.com/a_overview.html
> >
> >
> > Notice Cingvlar vsed the word "plan" not "contract". If however a
> > cvstomer wants a new phone, or some featvre of a Cingvlar contract, then
> > they'd be pvt vnder a Cingvlar contract.
>
> What is yet to be known is the percentage of ATTWS cvstomers that, for
> whatever reason, want no part of Cingvlar and will bail ovt.
>
> ATTWS aggressively pvshed 2-year contracts right vp to their last day, so
> that will dampen any big loss of cvstomers. Bvt many of vs have either
> fvlfilled ovr term commitment to ATTWS or have contracts whose terms will
> shortly expire. This grovp may be disloyal to Cingvlar. In my case, I left
> Cellvlar One five years ago to go to AT&T, and I feel no obligation to
> Cingvlar. My contract rvns ovt next Jvly. By then, I hope that AT&T will
> have reentered the wireless marketplace, and will again offer incentives to
> bring on new cvstomers. If so, it's "Adios, Cingvlar!"
>
> I've always been an AT&T cvstomer, and have brand loyalty. Cingvlar will be
> able to prosper withovt having me as a cvstomer.

The loss of AT&TWS cvstomers that are there cavse they already left
Cingvlar once, or don't want to stay with the "NewCingvlar" can be
argved abovt, bvt it will be far greater than zero. ATTWS already had
the indvstries WORST chvrn rate and all this can only increase it.
Whatever the nvmbers, it will contribvte to Verizon overtaking the New
Cingvlar as largest carrier. My prediction of it happening in 2 years
may be beaten by a large margin.

ATTWS will be back in bvsiness in 6 months when Cingvlar MUST give back
the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
Sprint to sell cellvlar service vsing the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 2:58:47 PM

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

Sam wrote:
> Can someone say YES or NO to this question...
>
> Can i go to cingular store and port my number to Cingular today?
> (currently i have ATTWS with contract expired).
>
> Are they(cingular store) going to allow me to port my number from ATTWS
> to cingular....?

Probably not. You can find out for sure by simply going into a Cingular
store and asking them. Now that ATTWS is part of Cingular, it would be
a meaningless activity as far as Cingular is concerned - they have no
incentive to do it and no obligation to do it. So I would expect that
they've informed their sales associates that ports from ATTWS are no
longer to be accepted.

But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.

Let us know what you learn when you get there.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 5:21:32 PM

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

In article <1099055138.584107.175650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sam" <smartboy123us@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for your responses.. But looks like everyone is
> off-topic here. My question is till unanswered. Can someone say YES or
> NO to this question...
>
> Can i go to cingular store and port my number to Cingular today?
> (currently i have ATTWS with contract expired).
>
> Are they(cingular store) going to allow me to port my number from ATTWS
> to cingular and get good deal on new phones?
>
> Thank you
> Sam
>
> ps: i am not simply going to quit.. I WILL PORT MY NUMBER..

Yes, yes, yes. Whether its a good deal or not is up to you to decide.
It will be the same deal anyone coming in off the street could get.
October 29, 2004 5:57:53 PM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
>
> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.

AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. You may be
underestimating the effect of brand loyalty. I have zero reason to be loyal
to Cingular. I chose AT&T. I will probably choose AT&T again.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:29:45 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-694561.05170629102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 10:17:25 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>The loss of AT&TWS customers that are there cause they already left
>Cingular once, or don't want to stay with the "NewCingular" can be
>argued about, but it will be far greater than zero. ATTWS already had
>the industries WORST churn rate and all this can only increase it.

It may actually decrease churn, in part because customers leaving ATTWS for
Cingular will no longer be churn.

>Whatever the numbers, it will contribute to Verizon overtaking the New
>Cingular as largest carrier.

Not necessarily.

>My prediction of it happening in 2 years
>may be beaten by a large margin.

I'd be happy to take that bet.

>ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
>the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT.

Perhaps. Time will tell.

>ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
>Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
>does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.

Reason for loyalty: AT&T did a better job of customer service than ATTWS, and
was an innovator in cellular rate plans.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:30:25 PM

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

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

In <B%rgd.13503$ta5.2184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct 2004
13:57:53 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
>>
>> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
>> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
>> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
>> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>
>AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
>customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. ...

Really? Where and when? Link?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:33:39 PM

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

In article <z96dnUj0Vd03xx_cRVn-pA@adelphia.com>,
Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:

>
> But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
> while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.

It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.

Cingular still hasnt integrated the pieces/parts that were combined to
form Cingular 4 years ago.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:33:40 PM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <z96dnUj0Vd03xx_cRVn-pA@adelphia.com>,
> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>>But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
>>while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.
>
> It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.

But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:38:27 PM

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

In article <Jltgd.2059$_3.27473@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-694561.05170629102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 10:17:25 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >The loss of AT&TWS customers that are there cause they already left
> >Cingular once, or don't want to stay with the "NewCingular" can be
> >argued about, but it will be far greater than zero. ATTWS already had
> >the industries WORST churn rate and all this can only increase it.
>
> It may actually decrease churn, in part because customers leaving ATTWS for
> Cingular will no longer be churn.

But customers leaving zCingular will no longer go to ATTWS/

>
> >Whatever the numbers, it will contribute to Verizon overtaking the New
> >Cingular as largest carrier.
>
> Not necessarily.

When customers leave ATTWS/Cingular for Verizon that doesn't speed up
the day Verizon overtakes Cingular as largest carrier?
Only in your fantasy world Navas.
>
> >My prediction of it happening in 2 years
> >may be beaten by a large margin.
>
> I'd be happy to take that bet.

I don't bet. The last time I bet, the fellow was positive Dole would
beat Clinton in 1996.

I will save this post for the day (sooner than you'll ever admit) when
you can eat crow as Verizon again becomes number 1.

>
> >ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> >the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT.
>
> Perhaps. Time will tell.

Not perhaps, its in the purchase agreement.

>
> >ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> >Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> >does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>
> Reason for loyalty: AT&T did a better job of customer service than ATTWS, and
> was an innovator in cellular rate plans.

Reason for disloyalty - dropped called, poor coverage, Network issues.
New Network for the new ATTWS.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:39:20 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-529088.10332029102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 15:33:39 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <z96dnUj0Vd03xx_cRVn-pA@adelphia.com>,
> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>> But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
>> while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.
>
>It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.
>
>Cingular still hasnt integrated the pieces/parts that were combined to
>form Cingular 4 years ago.

The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is the
number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This integration
actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:43:48 PM

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

In article <B%rgd.13503$ta5.2184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> >
> > ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> > the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> > Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> > does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>
> AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
> customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. You may be
> underestimating the effect of brand loyalty. I have zero reason to be loyal
> to Cingular. I chose AT&T. I will probably choose AT&T again.

You'll be sorry when the new ATTWS using the SprintPCS network can't
give you a signal indoors, or you get find one of the myriad dead zones
in the Network not shown on their coverage maps.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:53:01 PM

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

In article <Iutgd.2064$_3.27393@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-529088.10332029102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 15:33:39 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <z96dnUj0Vd03xx_cRVn-pA@adelphia.com>,
> > Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
> >> while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.
> >
> >It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.
> >
> >Cingular still hasnt integrated the pieces/parts that were combined to
> >form Cingular 4 years ago.
>
> The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is the
> number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This integration
> actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.

As I've posted every day this week and you choose to ignore, prior
integrations haven't even happened yet. SNET, SWB, PacBell, Ameritech
pieces etc., STILL are not integrated, and thats after 4 years.

The only thing EASY about integrating ATTWS is Navas saying it's easy.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:54:15 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-7C63C7.10380829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 15:38:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <Jltgd.2059$_3.27473@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> It may actually decrease churn, in part because customers leaving ATTWS for
>> Cingular will no longer be churn.
>
>But customers leaving zCingular will no longer go to ATTWS/

Then they may not leave at all. (You really can't have it both ways:) 

>> >Whatever the numbers, it will contribute to Verizon overtaking the New
>> >Cingular as largest carrier.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>When customers leave ATTWS/Cingular for Verizon that doesn't speed up
>the day Verizon overtakes Cingular as largest carrier?
>Only in your fantasy world Navas.

I've already shown with real number that it's unlikely.

>> >My prediction of it happening in 2 years
>> >may be beaten by a large margin.
>>
>> I'd be happy to take that bet.
>
>I don't bet. The last time I bet, the fellow was positive Dole would
>beat Clinton in 1996.

In other words, you're just blowing smoke.

>I will save this post for the day (sooner than you'll ever admit) when
>you can eat crow as Verizon again becomes number 1.

Knock yourself out.

>> >ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
>> >the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT.
>>
>> Perhaps. Time will tell.
>
>Not perhaps, its in the purchase agreement.

Cingular must stop using the brand, but nothing in the purchase agreement (or
anyplace else) confirms that "ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months."

>> >ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
>> >Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
>> >does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>>
>> Reason for loyalty: AT&T did a better job of customer service than ATTWS, and
>> was an innovator in cellular rate plans.
>
>Reason for disloyalty - dropped called, poor coverage, Network issues.

Irrelevant.

>New Network for the new ATTWS.

SprintPCS gets better satisfaction ratings than the old ATTWS..

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 7:56:17 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-994860.10524229102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 15:53:01 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <Iutgd.2064$_3.27393@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is the
>> number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This integration
>> actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.
>
>As I've posted every day this week and you choose to ignore, prior
>integrations haven't even happened yet. SNET, SWB, PacBell, Ameritech
>pieces etc., STILL are not integrated, and thats after 4 years.

As I wrote (and you ignore), this integration actually looks to be easier than
prior integrations.

>The only thing EASY about integrating ATTWS is Navas saying it's easy.

You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded. :) 

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:00:36 PM

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

In article <X72dnRrhcfki-R_cRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In article <z96dnUj0Vd03xx_cRVn-pA@adelphia.com>,
> > Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
> >
> >>But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
> >>while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.
> >
> > It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.
>
> But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
> turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
> Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.

It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
doing that?
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:00:37 PM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:


> It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
> doing that?


Look at it this way: All ATTWS numbers have already been ported to
Cingular. They were ported this past Tuesday.

Porting a number from Cingular to Cingular isn't a particularly
meaningful activity.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:04:10 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-BF7E83.11001829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:00:36 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <X72dnRrhcfki-R_cRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:

>> But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
>> turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
>> Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.
>
>It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
>doing that?

Because it wouldn't. Cingular is simply offering Cingular rate plans to
former ATTWS subscribers. <http://www.newcingular.com/a_overview.html&gt;
No porting required.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:09:26 PM

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

In article <_Rtgd.2073$_3.27468@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-BF7E83.11001829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:00:36 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <X72dnRrhcfki-R_cRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
> > Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
> >> But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
> >> turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
> >> Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.
> >
> >It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
> >doing that?
>
> Because it wouldn't. Cingular is simply offering Cingular rate plans to
> former ATTWS subscribers. <http://www.newcingular.com/a_overview.html&gt;
> No porting required.

They plan to, you mean. Read your own link.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:10:21 PM

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

In article <BKtgd.2070$_3.27499@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-994860.10524229102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 15:53:01 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <Iutgd.2064$_3.27393@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is
> >> the
> >> number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This
> >> integration
> >> actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.
> >
> >As I've posted every day this week and you choose to ignore, prior
> >integrations haven't even happened yet. SNET, SWB, PacBell, Ameritech
> >pieces etc., STILL are not integrated, and thats after 4 years.
>
> As I wrote (and you ignore), this integration actually looks to be easier
> than
> prior integrations.
>
> >The only thing EASY about integrating ATTWS is Navas saying it's easy.
>
> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded. :) 

I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
perfect".
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:14:27 PM

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

In article <HItgd.2068$_3.27358@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-7C63C7.10380829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 15:38:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <Jltgd.2059$_3.27473@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> It may actually decrease churn, in part because customers leaving ATTWS
> >> for
> >> Cingular will no longer be churn.
> >
> >But customers leaving zCingular will no longer go to ATTWS/
>
> Then they may not leave at all. (You really can't have it both ways:) 

Right. Churn will disappear. DREAM ON.

>
> >> >Whatever the numbers, it will contribute to Verizon overtaking the New
> >> >Cingular as largest carrier.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.
> >
> >When customers leave ATTWS/Cingular for Verizon that doesn't speed up
> >the day Verizon overtakes Cingular as largest carrier?
> >Only in your fantasy world Navas.
>
> I've already shown with real number that it's unlikely.

No you haven't

>
> >> >My prediction of it happening in 2 years
> >> >may be beaten by a large margin.
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to take that bet.
> >
> >I don't bet. The last time I bet, the fellow was positive Dole would
> >beat Clinton in 1996.
>
> In other words, you're just blowing smoke.

I don't bet. You're blowing smoke that Verizon's growth rate (double
that of Cingular) will somehow slow down, and ATTWS with its flatline,
will somehow balloon. EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts Verizon will
overtake the new Cingular as largest carrier in 1 to 2 years.


>
> >I will save this post for the day (sooner than you'll ever admit) when
> >you can eat crow as Verizon again becomes number 1.
>
> Knock yourself out.
>
> >> >ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> >> >the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. Time will tell.
> >
> >Not perhaps, its in the purchase agreement.
>
> Cingular must stop using the brand, but nothing in the purchase agreement (or
> anyplace else) confirms that "ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months."

Nothing? Navas you are so out of it! Just press releases by ATT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...

>
> >> >ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> >> >Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> >> >does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
> >>
> >> Reason for loyalty: AT&T did a better job of customer service than ATTWS,
> >> and
> >> was an innovator in cellular rate plans.
> >
> >Reason for disloyalty - dropped called, poor coverage, Network issues.
>
> Irrelevant.

The high churn rates at ATTWS and SprintPCS say otherwise.

>
> >New Network for the new ATTWS.
>
> SprintPCS gets better satisfaction ratings than the old ATTWS..
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:14:53 PM

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

In article <lmtgd.2060$_3.27432@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <B%rgd.13503$ta5.2184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct 2004
> 13:57:53 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> >>
> >> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> >> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> >> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> >> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
> >
> >AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
> >customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. ...
>
> Really? Where and when? Link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:15:06 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-9C52E9.11100329102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded. :) 
>
>I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
>perfect".

Wrong on both counts.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:30:15 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-9C52E9.11100329102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded. :) 
>
>I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
>perfect".

Wrong on both counts.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:58:25 PM

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

In article <reugd.2078$_3.27463@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-9C52E9.11100329102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
> >> :) 
> >
> >I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
> >perfect".
>
> Wrong on both counts.

Cingular has not integrated PacBell, Snet, SWB, BellSouth, Houston
Cellular peices yet, not matter hopw much that fact displeases you or
you wish to pretend otherwise. It's 4 years now.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 8:59:55 PM

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

In article <e0ugd.2076$_3.27507@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-9C52E9.11100329102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
> >> :) 
> >
> >I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
> >perfect".
>
> Wrong on both counts.

and posting this twice doesn't make you more correct.

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

Another reason for Churn. Mishandled Rebates. My 8-12 weeks to receive a
rebate is now sitting at 16 weeks and I was told today (oh, the check
was sent 2 days ago), why do I think that's not true?
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:28:45 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-D26249.11143529102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:14:53 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <lmtgd.2060$_3.27432@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <B%rgd.13503$ta5.2184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct 2004
>> 13:57:53 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
>> >>
>> >> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
>> >> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
>> >> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
>> >> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>> >
>> >AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
>> >customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. ...
>>
>> Really? Where and when? Link?
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...

I didn't think so. That article doesn't support your claim.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:34:44 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-432A9A.11140829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:14:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <HItgd.2068$_3.27358@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> In other words, you're just blowing smoke.
>
>I don't bet. You're blowing smoke that Verizon's growth rate (double
>that of Cingular) will somehow slow down, and ATTWS with its flatline,
>will somehow balloon. EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts Verizon will
>overtake the new Cingular as largest carrier in 1 to 2 years.

Back up that last sentence if you can -- but of course you can't -- it's just
more smoke.

>> Cingular must stop using the brand, but nothing in the purchase agreement (or
>> anyplace else) confirms that "ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months."
>
>Nothing? Navas you are so out of it! Just press releases by ATT
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...

Wrong again:

1. That's not the purchase agreement.

2. It actually states:

The company hasn't decided whether to use AT&T Wireless as a separate brand
or market the new wireless service under the general AT&T brand.

Oops!

>The high churn rates at ATTWS and SprintPCS say otherwise.

Bodes ill for AT&T. From your article:

Bob Egan, president of industry consultancy Mobile Competency Inc.,
noted AT&T itself has had a mixed record in delivering wireless
services. "Before, they had the right vision, and they had bad
execution," so the question is whether the company can deliver better
service this time, he said. ...

You'll have to do much better than that to be taken seriously.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:26:00 AM

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

In article <oXwgd.2097$_3.27859@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-432A9A.11140829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:14:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <HItgd.2068$_3.27358@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> In other words, you're just blowing smoke.
> >
> >I don't bet. You're blowing smoke that Verizon's growth rate (double
> >that of Cingular) will somehow slow down, and ATTWS with its flatline,
> >will somehow balloon. EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts Verizon will
> >overtake the new Cingular as largest carrier in 1 to 2 years.
>
> Back up that last sentence if you can -- but of course you can't -- it's just
> more smoke.

Too bad you are so poorly reade. You didnt even know ATT was going back
into the wireless business in 6 months:

Start with these:

http://www.forbes.com/home/wireless/2004/10/11/cx_de_10...
ml

http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2004/02/17/story2...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_09/b387...

======

Now YOU find me a URL that says Verizon won't surpass Cingular in two
years.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:30:08 AM

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

In article <oXwgd.2097$_3.27859@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-432A9A.11140829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:14:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <HItgd.2068$_3.27358@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> In other words, you're just blowing smoke.
> >
> >I don't bet. You're blowing smoke that Verizon's growth rate (double
> >that of Cingular) will somehow slow down, and ATTWS with its flatline,
> >will somehow balloon. EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts Verizon will
> >overtake the new Cingular as largest carrier in 1 to 2 years.
>
> Back up that last sentence if you can -- but of course you can't -- it's just
> more smoke.
>
> >> Cingular must stop using the brand, but nothing in the purchase agreement
> >> (or
> >> anyplace else) confirms that "ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months."
> >
> >Nothing? Navas you are so out of it! Just press releases by ATT
> >
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...
>
> Wrong again:
>
> 1. That's not the purchase agreement.
>
> 2. It actually states:
>
> The company hasn't decided whether to use AT&T Wireless as a separate
> brand
> or market the new wireless service under the general AT&T brand.
>
> Oops!
>
> >The high churn rates at ATTWS and SprintPCS say otherwise.
>
> Bodes ill for AT&T. From your article:
>
> Bob Egan, president of industry consultancy Mobile Competency Inc.,
> noted AT&T itself has had a mixed record in delivering wireless
> services. "Before, they had the right vision, and they had bad
> execution," so the question is whether the company can deliver better
> service this time, he said. ...
>
> You'll have to do much better than that to be taken seriously.

Sorry you again refuse to face reality. This all happened in March.

http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2004/05/18/story0...
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:30:40 AM

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

In article <NRwgd.2096$_3.27801@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-D26249.11143529102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:14:53 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <lmtgd.2060$_3.27432@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In <B%rgd.13503$ta5.2184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> >> 2004
> >> 13:57:53 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> >> >>
> >> >> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> >> >> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> >> >> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like
> >> >> Virgin
> >> >> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
> >> >
> >> >AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
> >> >customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. ...
> >>
> >> Really? Where and when? Link?
> >
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...
>
> I didn't think so. That article doesn't support your claim.

Then you didnt read it.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:32:41 AM

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

In article <dKGdnbnuAJo2Gh_cRVn-3g@adelphia.com>,
Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>
>
> > It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
> > doing that?
>
>
> Look at it this way: All ATTWS numbers have already been ported to
> Cingular. They were ported this past Tuesday.
>
> Porting a number from Cingular to Cingular isn't a particularly
> meaningful activity.

Once the systems are integrated. For now as it says on their website,
everything remains the same.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:10:41 AM

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

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

In <jzwick3-6DDB46.15311029102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 20:30:40 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <NRwgd.2096$_3.27801@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <jzwick3-D26249.11143529102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
>> 2004 16:14:53 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <lmtgd.2060$_3.27432@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In <B%rgd.13503$ta5.2184@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
>> >> 2004
>> >> 13:57:53 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
>> >> >> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
>> >> >> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like
>> >> >> Virgin
>> >> >> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>> >> >
>> >> >AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
>> >> >customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. ...
>> >>
>> >> Really? Where and when? Link?
>> >
>> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37666-20...
>>
>> I didn't think so. That article doesn't support your claim.
>
>Then you didnt read it.

You have that backwards.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:11:35 AM

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

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

In <jzwick3-9DED34.15331029102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 20:32:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <dKGdnbnuAJo2Gh_cRVn-3g@adelphia.com>,
> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>> > It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
>> > doing that?
>>
>>
>> Look at it this way: All ATTWS numbers have already been ported to
>> Cingular. They were ported this past Tuesday.
>>
>> Porting a number from Cingular to Cingular isn't a particularly
>> meaningful activity.
>
>Once the systems are integrated. For now as it says on their website,
>everything remains the same.

It doesn't actually say that -- that's just your biased interpretation.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:22:04 AM

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

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

In <jzwick3-5D4421.15262329102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 20:26:00 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <oXwgd.2097$_3.27859@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <jzwick3-432A9A.11140829102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
>> 2004 16:14:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <HItgd.2068$_3.27358@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> In other words, you're just blowing smoke.
>> >
>> >I don't bet. You're blowing smoke that Verizon's growth rate (double
>> >that of Cingular) will somehow slow down, and ATTWS with its flatline,
>> >will somehow balloon. EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts Verizon will
>> >overtake the new Cingular as largest carrier in 1 to 2 years.
>>
>> Back up that last sentence if you can -- but of course you can't -- it's just
>> more smoke.
>
>Too bad you are so poorly reade. You didnt even know ATT was going back
>into the wireless business in 6 months:

I actually knew the facts, and those aren't the facts.

>Start with these:
>
>http://www.forbes.com/home/wireless/2004/10/11/cx_de_10...
>ml

Doesn't support your "EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts" claim.

>http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2004/02/17/story2...

Doesn't support your "EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts" claim, just the weak:
"Some expect Verizon Wireless to eventually regain the upper hand."

>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_09/b387...

Doesn't support your "EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts" claim.

0 for 3. Par for your course.

>======
>
>Now YOU find me a URL that says Verizon won't surpass Cingular in two
>years.

It's your (silly) claim, not mine.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:23:28 AM

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

In article <bmygd.2120$_3.27812@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-9DED34.15331029102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 20:32:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <dKGdnbnuAJo2Gh_cRVn-3g@adelphia.com>,
> > Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jack Zwick wrote:
> >>
> >> > It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
> >> > doing that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Look at it this way: All ATTWS numbers have already been ported to
> >> Cingular. They were ported this past Tuesday.
> >>
> >> Porting a number from Cingular to Cingular isn't a particularly
> >> meaningful activity.
> >
> >Once the systems are integrated. For now as it says on their website,
> >everything remains the same.
>
> It doesn't actually say that -- that's just your biased interpretation.

Let's let everyone interpret for themselves!

It says to ATTWS customers:

.....rest assured you can continue to enjoy your existing benefits
uninterrupted and without changes to your plan or its features.

=========

Note it says "plan"

http://www.newcingular.com/a_overview.html
!