Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 6:06:22 AM

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

<http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050130/sbc_at_t_9.html&gt;

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.

More about : deal sbc buy

Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 6:06:23 AM

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&gt;
>
> 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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 10:45:22 AM

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&gt;
>
> 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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 4:14:53 PM

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&gt;
> >
> > 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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 4:14:54 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 5:20:37 PM

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&gt;
> >
> > 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
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 5:27:02 PM

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&gt;
>>>
>>>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 -:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 8:37:26 PM

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&gt;
> > >
> > > 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?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
January 31, 2005 9:01:34 PM

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&gt;
> > > >
> > > > 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
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 3:39:27 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 4:03:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 11:49:34 AM

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)
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 1:54:04 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 2:03:13 PM

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&gt;
>
>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/&gt;

"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]
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 7:37:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 8:31:35 PM

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::
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 8:39:04 PM

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&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 9:14:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 9:14:38 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 1, 2005 10:25:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 2, 2005 6:02:13 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 2, 2005 5:49:13 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 2, 2005 7:48:27 PM

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

> No other carrier sold off their wireless.


(Bangs head on table).. Why me....
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 2, 2005 7:57:22 PM

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=...
50201/cm_usatoday/atampthangsupandfewaresorrytosaygoodbye>

"AT&T hangs up - and few are sorry to say goodbye"
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 2, 2005 9:51:30 PM

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=...
> > 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.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 3, 2005 3:48:08 AM

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

> I may be older than you. I heard horror stories of its arrogance
> throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties from all the people I
> know. Sorry, it was BAD before the breakup. And it was a dollar a minute
> for long distance until AT&T had any competition. I like breakups, only
> wish Microsoft had been broken up as first determined by the court.

I think that other factors were involved. While AT&T had no competition
and could just set prices as it saw fit, I think wide-spread
technological advances had a bigger impact on LD prices than the AT&T
breakup. Much like the way that digital modes make more efficient use
of spectrum than analog modes on wireless.

Than again, I've only spent a few years living in an area served by one
of the RBOC's. My experience with them (what is now Qwest and Verizon)
has been very very poor.

TH
February 3, 2005 12:34:29 PM

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:48:08 GMT, Tropical Haven <user@example.net>
wrote:

>I think that other factors were involved. While AT&T had no competition
>and could just set prices as it saw fit,

The trouble is that's not the way it is/was. AT&T as far as long
distance rates was always under the watch of the FCC and state
regulatory bodies. They were guaranteed a rate of return and beyond a
certain point they were prohibited from charging rates above that
limit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 4, 2005 1:01:14 AM

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

In article <12o4015stnkcjrf64rajfkad8398sqmj1p@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:48:08 GMT, Tropical Haven <user@example.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I think that other factors were involved. While AT&T had no competition
> >and could just set prices as it saw fit,
>
> The trouble is that's not the way it is/was. AT&T as far as long
> distance rates was always under the watch of the FCC and state
> regulatory bodies. They were guaranteed a rate of return and beyond a
> certain point they were prohibited from charging rates above that
> limit.

And of course they never arranged their accounting to minimize the
profit on paper. NOT
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 4, 2005 6:32:46 AM

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

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

In <jzwick3-3CB826.17453002022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Wed, 02 Feb
2005 23:45:39 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <420156F3.4060708@example.net>,
> Tropical Haven <user@example.net> wrote:

>> I wasn't around for ALL of AT&T's glory, but all I hear from people is
>> how service went from the best, to barely acceptable with the breakup.
>> Not only do they complain that prices have gone up (more than simple
>> inflation), but that service and quality have degraded. The old saying
>> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is heard often.

>I may be older than you. I heard horror stories of its arrogance
>throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties from all the people I
>know. Sorry, it was BAD before the breakup. ...

Nonsense. AT&T had and still has very good to excellent customer service.
For example, AT&T WorldNet is an excellent ISP.

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

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 4, 2005 7:40:57 AM

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

> Nonsense. AT&T had and still has very good to excellent customer service.
> For example, AT&T WorldNet is an excellent ISP.

Their ISP related services are top notch.
That's why I know my internet service will probably get worse.
Once you are at the top, the only way you can go is down.
And the fact that it gives you a direct connection
to AT&T's IP network is also a major plus. :-)

Many technology annalist that I have heard comment about
AT&T's IP network, say one clear message..

It is the largest, highest capacity, highest reliability,
and most highly advanced network in the world, bar non.

I have looked at the specs for AT&T's and SBC's local systems in Texas.
(SBC's home turf)
As it stands, AT&T's local Texas system has over
16 times the capacity that SBC's Texas network has.
In some places, AT&T's capacity is 48X that of SBC's system.
And SBC's system is designed to feed cable head ends.
What are the possibilities with 16 to 48 times that.

The CEO of SBC said that he is excited to have the chance to put
traffic on AT&T's fiber network.

And SBC is saying that it is going to utilize AT&T's fiber network
To support the "project lightspeed" service they are planning to role out.
It will use FTTP (fiber to the premises) technology, and FTTN (fiber to the
node)
And only a fiber network like AT&T's will be able to support it.

"In existing neighborhoods, or "overbuild" situations, SBC plans to use an
FTTN architecture, which on average takes fiber to within 3,000 feet of
homes being served and makes use of advanced compression technologies along
with IP switching to deliver high-quality TV, Internet access and voice
services. FTTN is capable of delivering 20 to 25 megabits downstream,
sufficient to simultaneously deliver four streams of TV programming,
including HDTV and Internet access with robust speeds, and IP voice -all on
a common IP network platform."

And fiber is one of the only technologies that will be able to bring
A high speed internet connection to my house.
I am too far away from town to get ISDN and DSL.
But fiber will fit the bill nicely.

Think about it.
I'll be able to pull a 20Mbps stream.

And I'll still have a connection to the largest, highest capacity, highest
reliability,
and most highly advanced network in the world.
But I will have a 20Mbps pipe, instead of a 26Kbps pipe.

If the lightspeed project comes through,
I may like the AT&T/SBC pair after all...... :-)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 4, 2005 6:46:27 PM

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

In article <t1DMd.146522$w62.18925@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

>
> Think about it.
> I'll be able to pull a 20Mbps stream.

When, and at what cost? and still be capped at 128L upstream?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 5, 2005 2:47:13 AM

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

> at what cost?
Lets see...
We are paying $70 a month for Directv
We are paying $60 a month for two phone lines.
We are paying $20 a month for internet service.

So if they can deliver it to us for under $150 a month,
I will be saving money.

>still be capped at 128L upstream?

SBC DSL isn't even limited to that level now.
The $36.99 package with 1.5 to 3Mbps downstream,
has an upstream of 384Kbps

Both their current ADSL packages has an upstream
of 1/10 their maximum downstream.

So, a FTTN connection with 20Mbps downstream
will probably stick to that rule.
It will probably have a 2Mbps upstream.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 5, 2005 3:00:22 AM

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

In article <5QTMd.5018$Th1.4091@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

> > at what cost?
> Lets see...
> We are paying $70 a month for Directv
> We are paying $60 a month for two phone lines.
> We are paying $20 a month for internet service.
>
> So if they can deliver it to us for under $150 a month,
> I will be saving money.
>
> >still be capped at 128L upstream?
>
> SBC DSL isn't even limited to that level now.
> The $36.99 package with 1.5 to 3Mbps downstream,
> has an upstream of 384Kbps

WRONG !

It has speeds of *** upto *** the numbers you list, depending in large
part upon your distance from a Central Office or Terminal Station.
They very specifically state they do not guarantee any specific speed.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 5, 2005 3:00:23 AM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-65C06A.18002204022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...

>
> WRONG !
>
> It has speeds of *** upto *** the numbers you list, depending in large
> part upon your distance from a Central Office or Terminal Station.
> They very specifically state they do not guarantee any specific speed.

No internet provider guarantees speed. It is all marketed as a 'best
effort' product.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 5, 2005 4:05:56 AM

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

> It has speeds of *** upto *** the numbers you list, depending in large
> part upon your distance from a Central Office or Terminal Station.
> They very specifically state they do not guarantee any specific speed.

Duuuuuuuuuuu...............
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 5, 2005 7:19:30 AM

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

In article <UZUMd.5194$Th1.5167@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobugatt.net> wrote:

> > It has speeds of *** upto *** the numbers you list, depending in large
> > part upon your distance from a Central Office or Terminal Station.
> > They very specifically state they do not guarantee any specific speed.
>
> Duuuuuuuuuuu...............

Make sure you cut out your post that elicited that response since you
didn't indicate any awareness of the caveat I posted. Duhhhhh:

Original message:

> SBC DSL isn't even limited to that level now.
> The $36.99 package with 1.5 to 3Mbps downstream,
> has an upstream of 384Kbps

WRONG !

It has speeds of *** upto *** the numbers you list, depending in large
part upon your distance from a Central Office or Terminal Station.
They very specifically state they do not guarantee any specific speed.
!