Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

<http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>

side effects:

No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular

No need to worry about stopping to use AT&T Wireless name on April 23,
or removing AT&T Wireless name from all the stores where it still is.
SBC which owns the majority of Cingular will also own AT&T, and tell
AT&T to not complain.
 
G

Guest

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
> <http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
>
> side effects:
>
> No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular

Hey Phillipe, I thought you weren't going to post here (a.c.spcs) anymore. Said
you were leaving because you were fed up with Sprint and with us.

Guess you lied? (not a big surprise)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
 
G

Guest

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
> <http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
>
> side effects:
>
> No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular


Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <10vsa32kmr8pj3f@corp.supernews.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > <http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
> >
> > side effects:
> >
> > No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> > they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> > to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
>
>
> Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
> AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.

Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS
if they're being bought by SBC. Sprint was counting those AT&T bucks,
that now they wont get.
 
G

Guest

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

Jack Zwick wrote:

>>Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
>>AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.
>
> Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS
> if they're being bought by SBC. Sprint was counting those AT&T bucks,
> that now they wont get.

Hello, He Who Swore He'd Never Post To Alt.Sprintpcs Again:

The point was that with the Nextel deal, the loss of AT&T isn't going to have
the impact that it originally might have. Why'd you lie about posting to the
SPCS newsgroup?

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
 
G

Guest

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

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:ctk7mr$lup$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > <http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
> >
> > side effects:
> >
> > No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> > they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> > to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
>
> Hey Phillipe, I thought you weren't going to post here (a.c.spcs) anymore.
Said
> you were leaving because you were fed up with Sprint and with us.
>
> Guess you lied? (not a big surprise)

Yup ... It's ole Phillipe, and showing what a liar he is, when he said he'd
never post in the group again.

Bob
 
G

Guest

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

Smiling Wickedly, Bob Smith answered:
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:ctk7mr$lup$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
>
>>Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>>><http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
>>>
>>>side effects:
>>>
>>>No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
>>>they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
>>>to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
>>
>>Hey Phillipe, I thought you weren't going to post here (a.c.spcs) anymore.
>
> Said
>
>>you were leaving because you were fed up with Sprint and with us.
>>
>>Guess you lied? (not a big surprise)
>
>
> Yup ... It's ole Phillipe, and showing what a liar he is, when he said he'd
> never post in the group again.
>
> Bob
>
>
<Oh Gawd>....

--
*..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:- Michael -:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
 
G

Guest

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

In article <V8rLd.3326$S3.3105@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:ctk7mr$lup$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> > Jack Zwick wrote:
> > > <http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
> > >
> > > side effects:
> > >
> > > No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> > > they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> > > to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
> >
> > Hey Phillipe, I thought you weren't going to post here (a.c.spcs) anymore.
> Said
> > you were leaving because you were fed up with Sprint and with us.
> >
> > Guess you lied? (not a big surprise)
>
> Yup ... It's ole Phillipe, and showing what a liar he is, when he said he'd
> never post in the group again.
>
> Bob

And your childish insults makes up for how many hundred million dollars
SprintPCS will lose now?
 
G

Guest

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-BF2A41.11354231012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <V8rLd.3326$S3.3105@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> > news:ctk7mr$lup$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> > > Jack Zwick wrote:
> > > > <http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
> > > >
> > > > side effects:
> > > >
> > > > No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile)
when
> > > > they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no
need
> > > > to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
> > >
> > > Hey Phillipe, I thought you weren't going to post here (a.c.spcs)
anymore.
> > Said
> > > you were leaving because you were fed up with Sprint and with us.
> > >
> > > Guess you lied? (not a big surprise)
> >
> > Yup ... It's ole Phillipe, and showing what a liar he is, when he said
he'd
> > never post in the group again.
> >
> > Bob
>
> And your childish insults makes up for how many hundred million dollars
> SprintPCS will lose now?

Childish insults? LMAO Phillipe. Every time you post under a different ID,
you show what a child you are. As for insults, it was you who said you would
never post here, yet you did. That wasn't an insult, it was the truth.

As for the stock market today, it seems that the investors like what's going
on, as SPCS is current up $.59 a share as of 12:55 PM ECT. ATT investors are
too happy right now, as their share price is down $0.64 right now.

As for the lack of any income SPCS might have received from ATT, that was
all funny money until they started reselling service.

Bob
 
G

Guest

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

> No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
>
> No need to worry about stopping to use AT&T Wireless name on April 23,
> or removing AT&T Wireless name from all the stores where it still is.
> SBC which owns the majority of Cingular will also own AT&T, and tell
> AT&T to not complain.

Side note......
(Besides the fact that my internet connection will probably be screwed.)

I hope SBC keeps the AT&T name.
(ie)The final combined company will carry the ATT name.

It was all ATT before the breakup, it would be sad for SBC to officially
bring such a long lived brand to an end, instead of accepting the name
as their own, because at one time, it was the name they went by.

(all right, my sentimental streak is showing)
 
G

Guest

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

In article <3dALd.152$xR1.3@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

> > No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> > they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> > to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
> >
> > No need to worry about stopping to use AT&T Wireless name on April 23,
> > or removing AT&T Wireless name from all the stores where it still is.
> > SBC which owns the majority of Cingular will also own AT&T, and tell
> > AT&T to not complain.
>
> Side note......
> (Besides the fact that my internet connection will probably be screwed.)
>
> I hope SBC keeps the AT&T name.
> (ie)The final combined company will carry the ATT name.

Use the ATT name yes, replace SBC, not.

>
> It was all ATT before the breakup, it would be sad for SBC to officially
> bring such a long lived brand to an end, instead of accepting the name
> as their own, because at one time, it was the name they went by.
>
> (all right, my sentimental streak is showing)

Some reports I've seen and read have said AT&T name will be kept,
although there will be thousands of layoffs. They're guestimating 17
months for regulatory approvals, Federal, State, Foreign.

Rumors are another one or more "Baby Bell" will now acquire MCI and/or
Sprint.

My guess (and that's all it is) is that AT&T name will be kept for high
end business sales, and SBC / Cingular brands for consumer sales.
 
G

Guest

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

The breakup was 21 years ago. Get over it, already ...or become a "ZWICK".
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote in message
news:3dALd.152$xR1.3@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
> > they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
> > to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
> >
> > No need to worry about stopping to use AT&T Wireless name on April 23,
> > or removing AT&T Wireless name from all the stores where it still is.
> > SBC which owns the majority of Cingular will also own AT&T, and tell
> > AT&T to not complain.
>
> Side note......
> (Besides the fact that my internet connection will probably be screwed.)
>
> I hope SBC keeps the AT&T name.
> (ie)The final combined company will carry the ATT name.
>
> It was all ATT before the breakup, it would be sad for SBC to officially
> bring such a long lived brand to an end, instead of accepting the name
> as their own, because at one time, it was the name they went by.
>
> (all right, my sentimental streak is showing)
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

Jack Zwick wrote:

>>Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
>>AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.
>
>
> Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS

I didn't say they would be. What I *AM* saying is that the MVNO isn't
needed for Sprint's success.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
 
G

Guest

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

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

In <jzwick3-85677A.21043930012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Mon, 31 Jan
2005 03:06:22 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

><http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html>
>
>side effects:
>
>No need for AT&T to start a new wireless operation (AT&T Mobile) when
>they are part of SBC which is the majority owner of Cingular. So no need
>to use SprintPCS network. Bad for SprintPCS, good for Cingular
>
>No need to worry about stopping to use AT&T Wireless name on April 23,
>or removing AT&T Wireless name from all the stores where it still is.
>SBC which owns the majority of Cingular will also own AT&T, and tell
>AT&T to not complain.

In other words, you were wrong. Imagine that. :)

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
 
G

Guest

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

In article <10vv9gst2372148@corp.supernews.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> >>Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
> >>AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.
> >
> >
> > Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS
>
> I didn't say they would be. What I *AM* saying is that the MVNO isn't
> needed for Sprint's success.

I didnt say it was, I just said Sprint is apparently going to lose the
big chunk of revenue it was expecting from AT&T Mobile's MVNO.
 
G

Guest

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-1262B8.10373901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <10vv9gst2372148@corp.supernews.com>,
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>
> > Jack Zwick wrote:
> >
> > >>Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
> > >>AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.
> > >
> > >
> > > Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS
> >
> > I didn't say they would be. What I *AM* saying is that the MVNO isn't
> > needed for Sprint's success.
>
> I didnt say it was, I just said Sprint is apparently going to lose the
> big chunk of revenue it was expecting from AT&T Mobile's MVNO.

You've said a lot of things Phillipe ... All which don't mean diddley squat
....

Bob::Remembering when Phillipe predicted that SPCS would go belly up last
year 14 months ago::
 
G

Guest

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

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

In <jzwick3-1262B8.10373901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
2005 16:37:46 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <10vv9gst2372148@corp.supernews.com>,
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>> >>Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
>> >>AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.
>> >
>> > Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS
>>
>> I didn't say they would be. What I *AM* saying is that the MVNO isn't
>> needed for Sprint's success.
>
>I didnt say it was, I just said Sprint is apparently going to lose the
>big chunk of revenue it was expecting from AT&T Mobile's MVNO.

It wasn't a "big chunk of revenue" -- it was only marketed as part of a bundle
of business communications services, and reportedly with only limited success.
Sprint has much bigger fish to fry.

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

Guest

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

In article <X1PLd.6516$Ix.5608@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-1262B8.10373901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <10vv9gst2372148@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jack Zwick wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Not really. Maybe good for CIngular, but a lot has happened since the
> > > >>AT&T/Sprint deal was announced, such as the Nextel merger.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep dreaming that AT&T would use SprintPCS
> > >
> > > I didn't say they would be. What I *AM* saying is that the MVNO isn't
> > > needed for Sprint's success.
> >
> > I didnt say it was, I just said Sprint is apparently going to lose the
> > big chunk of revenue it was expecting from AT&T Mobile's MVNO.
>
> You've said a lot of things ... All which don't mean diddley squat

Nor do your insults. Big men talk ideas, little men talk personalities
as Eleanor Roosevelt said.

> ...
>
> Bob::Remembering when it was predicted that SPCS would go belly up last
> year 14 months ago::

We don't know if they would have as they were resorbed back into Sprint,
and there finances aren't fully independantly reported anymore.

Meanwhile with SBC trying to buy AT&T, word on Wall Street is that
Verizon and Bell South will now chose up between MCI and Sprint, so each
can have their own long distance set up. So Verizon tries to buy Sprint,
and FTC makes it spin off SprintPCS to allow the merger, and then
SprintPCS will again have to honestly report its finances.
 
G

Guest

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

Jack Zwick wrote:

> We don't know if they would have as they were resorbed back into Sprint,
> and there finances aren't fully independantly reported anymore.

While there is some truth to your statement, if they were in financial trouble,
you'd still know. At this point, long distance isn't a big part of any telco's
long-term plans for revenue; it's a commodity that can be bought wholesale for
a couple cents per minute. That leaves Sprint with Internet services, landlines
through its United Telephone subsidiary and wireless. Believe me, if Sprint PCS
was in bad enough shape to risk going out of business, it would be driving down
revenue numbers for the rest of the company and we'd all have heard about it.

> Meanwhile with SBC trying to buy AT&T, word on Wall Street is that
> Verizon and Bell South will now chose up between MCI and Sprint, so each
> can have their own long distance set up. So Verizon tries to buy Sprint,
> and FTC makes it spin off SprintPCS to allow the merger, and then
> SprintPCS will again have to honestly report its finances.

Wouldn't care to bet money on that, would you?

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
 
G

Guest

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-662AB1.12142901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <X1PLd.6516$Ix.5608@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> >
> > Bob::Remembering when it was predicted that SPCS would go belly up last
> > year 14 months ago::
>
> We don't know if they would have as they were resorbed back into Sprint,
> and there finances aren't fully independantly reported anymore.

They were always a part of Sprint, and all of their numbers are still
provided as they were in the past.

>
> Meanwhile with SBC trying to buy AT&T, word on Wall Street is that
> Verizon and Bell South will now chose up between MCI and Sprint, so each
> can have their own long distance set up. So Verizon tries to buy Sprint,
> and FTC makes it spin off SprintPCS to allow the merger, and then
> SprintPCS will again have to honestly report its finances.

Nobody would buy Sprint to spin off the PCS division. Its the only division
that will be making money in five years. Besides, I don't think anybody is
real eager to drop $1B into the Nextel coffers to buy Sprint.
 
G

Guest

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

> Nobody forced AT&T to spin off Lucent.

You totally missed the entire point of my post.
The regulatory groups was already firing warning shots.
The normal "concerns" about market share and other trash.
The same thing that happened last time.
ATT knew that if it didn't start peacefully divesting some stuff,
That the regulatory department would do if forcefully.

> AT&T made a bundle spinning off wireless.

And you can sell your legs for a good profit too.
There is many people that would pay
a good sum for a good pair of legs.
I'm sure it would be quite profitable.
It would be insane, but it would be profitable at that time.

The losses to the company that those sales caused over the years,
is many times the price that they sold them for.

They knew it was insanity, but the prospects of fighting
the government again would have been even worse.

Like lucent.
ATT went about trying to rebuild the hole that lucent left.
(AT&T labs)
To a large extent, they were successful.
Especially when you consider the hardware rights that went with lucent.
It's cost AT&T more to rebuild the hole that lucent left,
than they got off of divesting lucent.

There is two types of people make those types of sacrifices.
Insane people.
Or sane people that have a knife to their throat.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <VoXLd.3877$xR1.2602@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

>
> > Nobody forced AT&T to spin off Lucent.
>
> You totally missed the entire point of my post.
> The regulatory groups was already firing warning shots.
> The normal "concerns" about market share and other trash.
> The same thing that happened last time.
> ATT knew that if it didn't start peacefully divesting some stuff,
> That the regulatory department would do if forcefully.
>
> > AT&T made a bundle spinning off wireless.
>
> And you can sell your legs for a good profit too.
> There is many people that would pay
> a good sum for a good pair of legs.
> I'm sure it would be quite profitable.
> It would be insane, but it would be profitable at that time.

No other carrier sold off their wireless.
 
G

Guest

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

> No other carrier sold off their wireless.


(Bangs head on table).. Why me....
 
G

Guest

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

In article <vv7Md.6218$xR1.604@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

> > No other carrier sold off their wireless.
>
>
> (Bangs head on table).. Why me....

The rest of the world is not apologizing for AT&T.

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/200
50201/cm_usatoday/atampthangsupandfewaresorrytosaygoodbye>

"AT&T hangs up - and few are sorry to say goodbye"
 
G

Guest

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

In article
<3d9Md.137749$w62.117183@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

> > The rest of the world is not apologizing for AT&T.
> >
> > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/200
> > 50201/cm_usatoday/atampthangsupandfewaresorrytosaygoodbye>
> >
> > "AT&T hangs up - and few are sorry to say goodbye"
>
> Read some of the replies.
> -------------------------------------------
> Not much of an innovator?
> by: texas_dubbya_marshall (M/on my horse) 02/01/05 08:07 am
> Msg: 7 of 138
> 15 recommendations
>
> >> Not since its early days has it been much of an innovator.
>
> the author of this piece is obviously in his 20's ... i think he may have
> forgotten the discovery of the transistor,

Duh, the transistor was invented in 1947.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for supporting AT&T,
as the yahoo story shows, others do not share your opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom