Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 6:00:11 PM

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

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/

More about : mobile sprint

Anonymous
February 1, 2005 6:00:12 PM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
> http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/

Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 6:00:12 PM

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

Sprint also has signed deals with Time Warner and Earthlink to become
MVNO partners.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:42:15 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 <10vvd1s9fqb0547@corp.supernews.com> on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:54:19 -0500,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

>Jack Zwick wrote:
>> http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/
>
>Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
>crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
>honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
>Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
>hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
>customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.

Yep. All this does is make it more clear why SBC/Cingular (1) preserved the
ATTWS brand [something else Jack has ranted about] and (2) wasn't concerned
about the name reverting to AT&T.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:17:40 PM

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

In article <10vvd1s9fqb0547@corp.supernews.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/
>
> Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
> crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
> honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
> Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
> hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
> customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.

Maybe Disney and Warner also?

And dont count your DONE until it hatches.

We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status. SprintPCS was resorbed into
Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported. We do know that
100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
never materialize, but if 100's of millions is small potatoes, fine.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:20:27 PM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-55A47F.12173201022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <10vvd1s9fqb0547@corp.supernews.com>,
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>
> > Jack Zwick wrote:
> > > http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/
> >
> > Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
> > crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
> > honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
> > Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
> > hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
> > customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.
>
> Maybe Disney and Warner also?

Or Comcast or a multitude of others. No loss of potential.

>
> And dont count your DONE until it hatches.
>
> We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status. SprintPCS was resorbed into
> Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported.

Not true- everything is reported exactly as it was before.

>We do know that
> 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
> never materialize, but if 100's of millions is small potatoes, fine.

How can you guarantee it would be hundreds of millions? It would take an
awful lot of customers to get hundreds of millions from a reseller.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 11:40:13 PM

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

In article <1107284345.920003.41700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
larryt510@hotmail.com wrote:

> Sprint also has signed deals with Time Warner and Earthlink to become
> MVNO partners.

I forgot about the Earthlink one, you be correct.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/01/26/HNearthlinksk...
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:02:43 AM

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

> Yep. All this does is make it more clear why SBC/Cingular (1) preserved the
> ATTWS brand [something else Jack has ranted about] and (2) wasn't concerned
> about the name reverting to AT&T.

I remember reading that the Sprint PCS deal with AT&T was by no means
exclusive. AT&T, as it will operate as a separate entity until the
"merger" is officially approved, would be able to find a multitude of
reasons why SPCS is not the best suitor. Reasons could include
difficult negotations with handset manufacturers, the confustion of an
old name with a different technology and different coverage area, lack
of international roaming agreements, the list could go on.

I personally think that no matter what AT&T would be better off
reselling GSM services. However, if the SBC/AT&T deal goes through as
planned, it wouldn't really be reselling, it would just be bundling.

TH
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:48:17 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 <jzwick3-55A47F.12173201022005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Tue, 01 Feb
2005 18:17:40 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status. SprintPCS was resorbed into
>Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported. We do know that
>100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
>never materialize, but if 100's of millions is small potatoes, fine.

That "100's of millions" is pure Zwick Fantasy.

--
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 7:15:51 PM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> Maybe Disney and Warner also?
>
> And dont count your DONE until it hatches.

Likewise, I'd ask you not to count "Raising the Bar" with AT&T proper
until THAT deal hatches. The same regualtory hurdles apply.

> We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status.

I certainly do. And anyone who is qualified enough to read a Form 10
Q/K/A does, and last I checked, the only qualification to read a Form 10
was a knowledge of the English language. Can YOU read, Phillipe?

> SprintPCS was resorbed into
> Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported.

That statement is wrong in many ways it's impossibel to count.

First off, Sprint PCS was never "resorbed" because it was never a
separate company. A tracking stock was issued, but earnings and assets
remained a part of Sprint.

And second, although the PCS tracking stock is gone, there's a whole
section of each quarterly and annual report that is devoted to financial
and subscriber information in the PCS division, AND financials are still
separated between FON and PCS groups.

> We do know that
> 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
> never materialize,

Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
SK-Earthlink.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:14:32 AM

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

In article <1102gobimu14vf2@corp.supernews.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:


>
> > We do know that
> > 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
> > never materialize,
>
> Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
> getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
> SK-Earthlink.

replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:14:33 AM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-BD39B4.16124802022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <1102gobimu14vf2@corp.supernews.com>,
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > We do know that
> > > 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
> > > never materialize,
> >
> > Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
> > getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
> > SK-Earthlink.
>
> replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.

I'd be willing to bet that either one of the 'minnows' ends up making twice
the revenue of the dinosaur.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:03:27 AM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
>>Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
>>getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
>>SK-Earthlink.
>
>
> replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.

Well you think wrong, I'm afraid. Nextel is no minnow. There's a very
palpable difference. The AT&T deal meant starting a new carrier from
zero; no access to previous AT&T wireless customers, starting completely
fresh NAD having to worry about the confusion that would have come from
restarting an old brand on a different network. Compare that with
acquiring an established carrier like Nextel, that already has millions
of established, premium-paying customers AND acquiring Nextel's spectrum
licenses (which are due for a swap ou to 190Mhz) without having to bid
for them at auction.

SBC, on the other hand acquired (through Cingular) a wireless company
that mismanaged itself to the point where it received low makrs and had
the highest FCC complaint ratios. And it has now bought its parent
company, which also mismanaged itself to the point where it would not
have survived without an acquisition. They can have it, really.

I'll admit I was not a fan of the nextel deal, and I'm still skeptical,
but it shows better better promise than AT&T.




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:52:48 AM

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

If that means just Sprint landline (assuming this includes long
distance) I might agree.

Otherwise there'd be way too much regulatory hassle and divestiture to
make
the aquisition by either Verizon or BellSouth worthwhile.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:17:26 PM

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

In article <11038kgor9vf16e@corp.supernews.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> >>Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
> >>getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
> >>SK-Earthlink.
> >
> >
> > replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.
>
> Well you think wrong, I'm afraid. Nextel is no minnow. There's a very
> palpable difference. The AT&T deal meant starting a new carrier from
> zero; no access to previous AT&T wireless customers, starting completely
> fresh NAD having to worry about the confusion that would have come from
> restarting an old brand on a different network. Compare that with
> acquiring an established carrier like Nextel, that already has millions
> of established, premium-paying customers AND acquiring Nextel's spectrum
> licenses (which are due for a swap ou to 190Mhz) without having to bid
> for them at auction.
>
> SBC, on the other hand acquired (through Cingular) a wireless company
> that mismanaged itself to the point where it received low makrs and had
> the highest FCC complaint ratios.

AND NUMBER TWO IN WLNP LOSES AND COMPLAINTS: DRUM ROLL:

SPRINTPCS

STILL LOW RATED FOR CUSTOMER SUPPORT BY
THE YANKEE GROUP
CONSUMERS REPORTS
J.D. POWER




> And it has now bought its parent
> company, which also mismanaged itself to the point where it would not
> have survived without an acquisition. They can have it, really.
>
> I'll admit I was not a fan of the nextel deal, and I'm still skeptical,
> but it shows better better promise than AT&T.

Repeat after me. Now that AT&T has been bought out, Verizon and Bell
South will want a long distance carrier to buy.

Two companies, two long distance carrier. MCI, Sprint.

Guess what's going to happen to Sprint.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:17:27 PM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
>
>>SBC, on the other hand acquired (through Cingular) a wireless company
>>that mismanaged itself to the point where it received low makrs and had
>>the highest FCC complaint ratios.
>
>
> AND NUMBER TWO IN WLNP LOSES AND COMPLAINTS: DRUM ROLL:

Stay on topic, Bunky.

> SPRINTPCS
>
> STILL LOW RATED FOR CUSTOMER SUPPORT BY
> THE YANKEE GROUP
> CONSUMERS REPORTS
> J.D. POWER

This says nothing about the topic being discussed.

> Repeat after me. Now that AT&T has been bought out, Verizon and Bell
> South will want a long distance carrier to buy.
>
> Two companies, two long distance carrier. MCI, Sprint.
>
> Guess what's going to happen to Sprint.

Nothing.

--
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
February 3, 2005 7:11:32 PM

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

In article <1107442368.117289.77140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"carcarx" <carcarx@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If that means just Sprint landline (assuming this includes long
> distance) I might agree.
>
> Otherwise there'd be way too much regulatory hassle and divestiture to
> make
> the aquisition by either Verizon or BellSouth worthwhile.

Apparently with SBC buying AT&T, Verizon and Bell South disagree with
that conclusion.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:59:58 PM

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-5427EE.05171703022005@news1.west.earthlink.net...

>
> AND NUMBER TWO IN WLNP LOSES AND COMPLAINTS: DRUM ROLL:

Really? Cite your source for this information, as you claim no one is
reporting WNLP numbers.

>
> SPRINTPCS
>
> STILL LOW RATED FOR CUSTOMER SUPPORT BY
> THE YANKEE GROUP
> CONSUMERS REPORTS
> J.D. POWER

And having a better quarter than any of the competition:

http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/djh/20050...

>
>
>
>
> > And it has now bought its parent
> > company, which also mismanaged itself to the point where it would not
> > have survived without an acquisition. They can have it, really.
> >
> > I'll admit I was not a fan of the nextel deal, and I'm still skeptical,
> > but it shows better better promise than AT&T.
>
> Repeat after me. Now that AT&T has been bought out, Verizon and Bell
> South will want a long distance carrier to buy.
>
> Two companies, two long distance carrier. MCI, Sprint.
>
> Guess what's going to happen to Sprint.

They're either going to merge with Nextel or cost someone a fortune- they
just recently put some pretty good poison pills into the operation, along
with the fee someone will have to pay to stop the SprintNextel merger,
quoted to be around $1B
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 11:39:00 PM

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

Jack Zwick wrote:

> Repeat after me.

I don't repeat lies.

> Now that AT&T has been bought out, Verizon and Bell
> South will want a long distance carrier to buy.

Uhm no, they probably won't unless they want to go the way of AT&T.
Long distance is a commodity market, not a growth market. The current
growth patterns are in wireless and data, and both BellSouth and Verizon
have part ownerships in stable wireless operations.


> Two companies, two long distance carrier. MCI, Sprint.

Actually, by late 2005, Sprint will be focusing on wireless and data,
with LD and consumer phone services spun off to shareholders. Wow, you
haven't been keeping at all, have you?



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 2:51:59 AM

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

> I'll admit I was not a fan of the nextel deal, and I'm still skeptical,
> but it shows better better promise than AT&T.

You have a good point, AT&T Wireless was not really worth a whole lot...

However, I think Cingular wanted AT&T Wireless for the spectrum, and it
got the added bonus of millions of customers and some compatible
infrastructure.

Out of curiosity...can the same infrastructre be used for Cellular A as
Cellular B? Given a scenario that in State X, Cingular has all B
licenses except market X 4, where it's A, and another company, I'll
theorize it's Alltel, has all the A licenses except in market X 4 where
it just bought small Farmer's Telephone Company. Can Cingular and
Alltel switch licenses with the same infrastructure or is the
infrastructure set at only a certain level?

TH
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 2:52:00 AM

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

Tropical Haven wrote:

> However, I think Cingular wanted AT&T Wireless for the spectrum, and it
> got the added bonus of millions of customers and some compatible
> infrastructure.

No argument there. Cingular badly needed spectrum. However, that
spectrum is under load, so the benefits are dminished.

There's also the rather hurculean task of combining the two billing
systems, which is something that they so far haven't followed through
on. Makes me wonder how Sprint is going to handle Nextel. The
differences are WAY off compared to Cingular/AT&T.

> Out of curiosity...can the same infrastructre be used for Cellular A as
> Cellular B?

If the two systems are the same technology, then conceivably yes. This
is where AT*T WS and Cingular have an advantage: only the backroom
operations need to be worked out, and customers can keep using the same
equipment yet still immediately reap the benefits of two networks
working in tandem.

Using, say Sprint's infratructure for Nextel is not immediately possible
and will require time, effort and equipment swapouts.


> Given a scenario that in State X, Cingular has all B
> licenses except market X 4, where it's A, and another company, I'll
> theorize it's Alltel, has all the A licenses except in market X 4 where
> it just bought small Farmer's Telephone Company. Can Cingular and
> Alltel switch licenses with the same infrastructure or is the
> infrastructure set at only a certain level?

They can swap licenses, with FCC approval. In fact, it has happened in
the past. However, preferred roaming lists and multiband phones have
largely made this moot. It's not a big deal to have an A system in one
market and a B system in another market, or even a mixture of A, B, and
PCS licenses (A B C D E F and X) in the same area as long as your
subscribers have multiband phones.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:56:47 AM

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Tropical Haven wrote:
>
>> However, I think Cingular wanted AT&T Wireless for the spectrum, and
>> it got the added bonus of millions of customers and some compatible
>> infrastructure.
>
>
> No argument there. Cingular badly needed spectrum. However, that
> spectrum is under load, so the benefits are dminished.
>
> There's also the rather hurculean task of combining the two billing
> systems, which is something that they so far haven't followed through
> on. Makes me wonder how Sprint is going to handle Nextel. The
> differences are WAY off compared to Cingular/AT&T.
>
>> Out of curiosity...can the same infrastructre be used for Cellular A
>> as Cellular B?
>
>
> If the two systems are the same technology, then conceivably yes. This
> is where AT*T WS and Cingular have an advantage: only the backroom
> operations need to be worked out, and customers can keep using the same
> equipment yet still immediately reap the benefits of two networks
> working in tandem.
>
> Using, say Sprint's infratructure for Nextel is not immediately possible
> and will require time, effort and equipment swapouts.
>
>
>> Given a scenario that in State X, Cingular has all B licenses except
>> market X 4, where it's A, and another company, I'll theorize it's
>> Alltel, has all the A licenses except in market X 4 where it just
>> bought small Farmer's Telephone Company. Can Cingular and Alltel
>> switch licenses with the same infrastructure or is the infrastructure
>> set at only a certain level?
>
>
> They can swap licenses, with FCC approval. In fact, it has happened in
> the past. However, preferred roaming lists and multiband phones have
> largely made this moot. It's not a big deal to have an A system in one
> market and a B system in another market, or even a mixture of A, B, and
> PCS licenses (A B C D E F and X) in the same area as long as your
> subscribers have multiband phones.

Ok...really what I was wondering if infrastructure was related to
frequency (even more specific -- band). So I'm guessing that it's
basically 800/850 infrastructure and 1900 infrastructure? I suppose it
wouldn't be unreasonable to have infrastructure that could do both (as
in one cell site working with both cellular and PCS)...I'm assuming it
would need antennae for each but band of the frequency is not a problem?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:15:29 PM

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

Tropical Haven wrote:
>
> Ok...really what I was wondering if infrastructure was related to
> frequency (even more specific -- band). So I'm guessing that it's
> basically 800/850 infrastructure and 1900 infrastructure?

You kind of need to define what you mean by infrastructure. If you're
talking strictly about the transmitters on the sites, then yes, though
that's a very narrow definition you're using. If you're talking about
switching gear and mobile station modems (the stuff that routes and
encodes the call), then no, you really don't need to swap that out.

You may also need to re-engineer cell site locations depending on which
band you're going to. 1900MHz networks typically need more cell cites
to cover the same area than an 850MHz network.


> I suppose it
> wouldn't be unreasonable to have infrastructure that could do both (as
> in one cell site working with both cellular and PCS)...

That's also a possibility.




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:32:55 PM

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

Did verizon wireless grow anywhere near 22%? I don't think Sprint will
want to sell. Not even the long distance division, much less the whole
company.
!