Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Official musings on AT&T merger results.

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 11:49:23 AM

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

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050131/sbc_at_t_39.html

They're saying what I predicted:

"...SBC made clear that the globally recognized AT&T brand name would
not disappear as a result of the deal."

"AT&T doesn't own a wireless network, so it had struck a deal to use
Sprint Corp.'s cellular system. AT&T executives declined to say whether
that deal would stand or whether they might now seek to forge an
agreement to use Cingular's network."

I can tell you. Which one will decide an AT&T's executive's placement in
the new Merged company? An SBC/Cingular Executive, or a Sprint
Executive??
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:45:41 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-2F6B52.02473901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
2005 08:49:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050131/sbc_at_t_39.html
>
>They're saying what I predicted:
>...

I love how you try to gloss over all the predictions you've made that aren't
coming true, such as how AT&T will be jumping back in the wireless business
with SprintPCS. LOL!

--
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
February 1, 2005 7:25:01 PM

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:9dILd.4785$m31.64140@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-2F6B52.02473901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
> 2005 08:49:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050131/sbc_at_t_39.html
> >
> >They're saying what I predicted:
> >...
>
> I love how you try to gloss over all the predictions you've made that
aren't
> coming true, such as how AT&T will be jumping back in the wireless
business
> with SprintPCS. LOL!
>
I love how short these threads are since he went into my killfile....AND
they're more understandable, too.

Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:36:10 PM

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

In article <x3OLd.5084$wA5.2632@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark W. Oots" <mark_ctc@(no spam)ameritech.net> wrote:

>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:9dILd.4785$m31.64140@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <jzwick3-2F6B52.02473901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
> > 2005 08:49:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050131/sbc_at_t_39.html
> > >
> > >They're saying what I predicted:
> > >...
> >
> > I love how you try to gloss over all the predictions you've made that
> aren't
> > coming true, such as how AT&T will be jumping back in the wireless
> business
> > with SprintPCS. LOL!


They would have if the SBC purchase hadn't come about. Or do you forget
not evening knowing a deal had been made last year?

Here's the story you said didnt exist:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2004/05/1...

Navis just love to rag on anybody else. Even when (as is often the case)
you're wrong.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:15:38 PM

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

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

In <jzwick3-5C40D8.10360301022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
2005 16:36:10 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <x3OLd.5084$wA5.2632@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Mark W. Oots" <mark_ctc@(no spam)ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:9dILd.4785$m31.64140@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> >
>> > In <jzwick3-2F6B52.02473901022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
>> > 2005 08:49:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050131/sbc_at_t_39.html
>> > >
>> > >They're saying what I predicted:
>> > >...
>> >
>> > I love how you try to gloss over all the predictions you've made that
>> aren't
>> > coming true, such as how AT&T will be jumping back in the wireless
>> business
>> > with SprintPCS. LOL!
>
>They would have if the SBC purchase hadn't come about.

Nope, just another offering to include in bundles for business customers, as
reports made clear (to everyone but you).

>Or do you forget
>not evening knowing a deal had been made last year?

I knew what deal had been made.

>Here's the story you said didnt exist:

I didn't say that.

>http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2004/05/1...
>
>Navis just love to rag on anybody else. Even when (as is often the case)
>you're wrong.

In fact you only learned about this from comments by me (Oct 27 2004, 11:43
am) and others (Oct 27 2004, 10:32 am) in the thread "New Rumor, any comments"
-- your first comment on this wasn't until Oct 27 2004, 3:31 pm.
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?D12C1206A&gt; This was months after my earlier
comments in the thread I started "Say goodbye, then hello to AT&T phones".
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?P20C4606A&gt;

Apology accepted. ;-)

--
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
February 2, 2005 4:12:23 AM

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

> They would have if the SBC purchase hadn't come about. Or do you forget
> not evening knowing a deal had been made last year?
>
> Here's the story you said didnt exist:
>
> http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2004/05/1...
>
> Navis just love to rag on anybody else. Even when (as is often the case)
> you're wrong.

Commenting only on AT&T/Sprint/SBC...it would have made sense to
announce SPCS as a wireless carrier for the AT&T name because if AT&T
was looking to be acquired, most likely by one of the baby bells, it
would have had no ties to a different one. Even though BellSouth and
SBC were both thought to be the 2 best suitors (who, consequently,
jointly own Cingular and AT&T Wireless).

Even if something falls through with SBC, AT&T might still end up with
BellSouth...which would be almost the same position (wireless-wise). I
have a feeling that BellSouth and SBC co-operate on quite a few things
already. But I'm not a market analyst and I don't work for any of the
mentioned companies, so I don't know.

TH
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:39:46 AM

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

In article <B6ZLd.4927$m31.64979@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Well, then, you obviously know some lawyers; did you ever think about
> >consulting with them BEFORE getting into legal arguments about ringtones
> >and the like?
>
> Been there; done that.

Pray tell, then. Show us actual legal information about the matter,
instead of the "I said so" that you spent two weeks spewing.

Go on. We'll wait.
February 2, 2005 5:12:50 PM

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

Just add Navas to your killfile.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-14E7FC.06394602022005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <B6ZLd.4927$m31.64979@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Well, then, you obviously know some lawyers; did you ever think about
>> >consulting with them BEFORE getting into legal arguments about ringtones
>> >and the like?
>>
>> Been there; done that.
>
> Pray tell, then. Show us actual legal information about the matter,
> instead of the "I said so" that you spent two weeks spewing.
>
> Go on. We'll wait.
>
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:48:23 PM

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

In article <Cd5Md.5837$xR1.1679@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Just add Navas to your killfile.

That's what I did.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:32:47 AM

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

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

In <elmop-14E7FC.06394602022005@text.usenetserver.com> on Wed, 02 Feb 2005
06:39:46 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <B6ZLd.4927$m31.64979@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Well, then, you obviously know some lawyers; did you ever think about
>> >consulting with them BEFORE getting into legal arguments about ringtones
>> >and the like?
>>
>> Been there; done that.
>
>Pray tell, then. Show us actual legal information about the matter,
>instead of the "I said so" that you spent two weeks spewing.
>
>Go on. We'll wait.

I've already provided more support than anyone else here.
You (and a few others) have only provided ad hominem.
In other words, it's not my turn. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:32:47 AM

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

Please. :) 

In <Cd5Md.5837$xR1.1679@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Wed, 02 Feb
2005 14:12:50 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Just add Navas to your killfile.
>
>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>news:elmop-14E7FC.06394602022005@text.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <B6ZLd.4927$m31.64979@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Well, then, you obviously know some lawyers; did you ever think about
>>> >consulting with them BEFORE getting into legal arguments about ringtones
>>> >and the like?
>>>
>>> Been there; done that.
>>
>> Pray tell, then. Show us actual legal information about the matter,
>> instead of the "I said so" that you spent two weeks spewing.
>>
>> Go on. We'll wait.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:32:48 AM

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

In article <z1CMd.5213$m31.67449@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I've already provided more support than anyone else here.

No, you haven't. You've provided hot air, and lots of "Is not! Is so!"
claims against people who know what they're talking about.

You like to hear yourself speak. You also like to think you're a god of
some kind.
!