"Say goodbye, then hello to AT&T phones"

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...less_branding/>

Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
cellular services under the brand.

...

By the end of the year, when the merger is expected to be completed,
the two largest US cellphone carriers - Verizon and Cingular - will
not only be former Baby Bells, but two synthetic brands based on very
bad puns.

[MORE]

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

---

› See More: "Say goodbye, then hello to AT&T phones"

> Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> cellular services under the brand.

I think this is a result of AT&T protecting it's brand / cingular not
willing to lease the brand name, don't think we will see a new AT&T
wireless anytime soon. Unless some new spectrum is found we may see fewer
national networks in the future. Could AT&T resell another provider's
wireless under it's name yes, but only where not taking customers from that
provider.

"Stanley Reynolds"

>Could AT&T resell another provider's wireless under it's name yes, but only
where not taking customers from that provider.
>

AT&T has already concluded an agreement with SPRINT PCS to resell Sprint's
network under the AT&T brand, just like Virgin Mobile does now. AT&T has
stated that they intend to start operations immediately upon regaining their
brand and logos back.

Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.

AT&T will do their own customer service and equipment sales under the
agreement. They will also conclude their own roaming agreements and will do
their own billing. Sprint will provide access to their network on a
wholesale basis.

As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as a
result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming) charge, I
anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to remain competitive.
That can only mean good things for all cellular customers, as AT&T will hold
their competitors' feet to the fire.

AT&T said that they would start up "the day after" the completion of the
merger. It is unclear to me exactly what that definition is, but we can
expect AT&T to ramp up very quickly once their logos and trademarks come
back under their control. For all I know, their new AT&T-branded phones are
already sitting in warehouses, ready to be put into service.

AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility. If
they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's network--not
a start-up operation--with which to service their customers. Frankly I
would be surprised to learn that AT&T will remain a virtual wireless
company, because they can't really control their own destiny while relying
upon another company to provide it with a network backbone. But, as a
short-term solution, the deal with Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has
a ready-made wireless network that they can sell beginning on day #1.

I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I am
glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless industry, and
I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can always return to the AT&T
brand if I don't like the way Cingular treats me when they acquire my
account.

There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out, but
in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the consumer.
How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under $50 bucks a
month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .

Cheers

> AT&T has already concluded an agreement with SPRINT PCS to resell
> Sprint's network under the AT&T brand, just like Virgin Mobile does
> now. AT&T has stated that they intend to start operations immediately
> upon regaining their brand and logos back.

I hope they do well selling prepaid service but Virgin does have a head
start.

> AT&T will do their own customer service and equipment sales under the
> agreement. They will also conclude their own roaming agreements and
> will do their own billing. Sprint will provide access to their
> network on a wholesale basis.

Now if they could get a roaming agreement with Verizon they may catch
Virgin Mobile. But then Verizon does have their own prepaid service to
protect.

>
> As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as
> a result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming)
> charge, I anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to
> remain competitive. That can only mean good things for all cellular
> customers, as AT&T will hold their competitors' feet to the fire.
>

Yes customers can be gained with low prices but these same customers are
the first to leave for an even lower price.

<snip>
> AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
> scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility.

And Cingular will sell back the spectrum ?

> If they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's
> network--not a start-up operation--with which to service their
> customers. Frankly I would be surprised to learn that AT&T will
> remain a virtual wireless company, because they can't really control
> their own destiny while relying upon another company to provide it
> with a network backbone. But, as a short-term solution, the deal with
> Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has a ready-made wireless network
> that they can sell beginning on day #1.

And what did Cingular buy ?

>
> I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I
> am glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless
> industry, and I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can
> always return to the AT&T brand if I don't like the way Cingular
> treats me when they acquire my account.
>
> There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out,
> but in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the
> consumer. How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under
> $50 bucks a month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .
>
> Cheers
>
>

Well the glass could be half full. It is my hope that what ever returns
as AT&T wireless is a great company but I'am sure they will not follow
the lost cost leader the second time around.

ATT might be a virtual carrier, but nothing says that they will limit
themselves to prepaid. I'd note that Virgin UK has started offering monthly
bundled minute plans and they are a virtual carrier. I think the Virgin
comparison was solely because Virgin piggy backs on Sprint. Perhaps the
better comparison is T-Mobile on Cingular in the California market or MCI's
failed attempt at mobile phones.

I'd be shocked if ATT limits itself to prepaid. One thing we know is that
the new ATT will be based on CDMA technology. ATT might remain a virtual
carrier but eyeball CDMA licenses that are attractive. I'm not sure how
many licenses Qwest owns, but they seem like a guard target? Alltell might
be one as well. Also, ATT might start negotiating with Verizon for a
similar virtual carrier status in some markets.

One possibility that occured to me as I was writing this message is that ATT
might decide to be a virtual carrier on CDMA, but launch a "from the ground"
3g network keeping the virtual carrier status with Sprint as it builds its
footprint, much like 3 has done in the UK.

Obviously, this is all speculation.

Stu

"Stanley Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > AT&T has already concluded an agreement with SPRINT PCS to resell
> > Sprint's network under the AT&T brand, just like Virgin Mobile does
> > now. AT&T has stated that they intend to start operations immediately
> > upon regaining their brand and logos back.
>
> I hope they do well selling prepaid service but Virgin does have a head
> start.
>
> > AT&T will do their own customer service and equipment sales under the
> > agreement. They will also conclude their own roaming agreements and
> > will do their own billing. Sprint will provide access to their
> > network on a wholesale basis.
>
> Now if they could get a roaming agreement with Verizon they may catch
> Virgin Mobile. But then Verizon does have their own prepaid service to
> protect.
>
> >
> > As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as
> > a result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming)
> > charge, I anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to
> > remain competitive. That can only mean good things for all cellular
> > customers, as AT&T will hold their competitors' feet to the fire.
> >
>
> Yes customers can be gained with low prices but these same customers are
> the first to leave for an even lower price.
>
> <snip>
> > AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
> > scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility.
>
> And Cingular will sell back the spectrum ?
>
> > If they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's
> > network--not a start-up operation--with which to service their
> > customers. Frankly I would be surprised to learn that AT&T will
> > remain a virtual wireless company, because they can't really control
> > their own destiny while relying upon another company to provide it
> > with a network backbone. But, as a short-term solution, the deal with
> > Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has a ready-made wireless network
> > that they can sell beginning on day #1.
>
> And what did Cingular buy ?
>
> >
> > I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I
> > am glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless
> > industry, and I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can
> > always return to the AT&T brand if I don't like the way Cingular
> > treats me when they acquire my account.
> >
> > There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out,
> > but in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the
> > consumer. How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under
> > $50 bucks a month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
>
> Well the glass could be half full. It is my hope that what ever returns
> as AT&T wireless is a great company but I'am sure they will not follow
> the lost cost leader the second time around.
>

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

In <zVqXc.4657$Y%[email protected]> on Thu, 26 Aug 2004
19:32:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.

I haven't seen the license agreement (have you?), but I'd be surprised if the
licensing rights didn't remain with a merged company (i.e., Cingular),
although I can't imagine that Cingular would actually want to keep using the
AT&T name.

>As AT&T were pioneers in bringing down cellular charges--especially as a
>result of their rollout of the Digital One Rate (with no roaming) charge, I
>anticipate that they will maintain their commitment to remain competitive.
>That can only mean good things for all cellular customers, as AT&T will hold
>their competitors' feet to the fire.

Not necessarily -- AT&T was aggressive on nationwide coverage, but not on
price, and I personally doubt that it will now be a price leader. Frankly,
I don't see this as having much effect on the market for the foreseeable
future, in part due to SprintPCS spectrum limitations.

>AT&T said that they would start up "the day after" the completion of the
>merger. It is unclear to me exactly what that definition is, but we can
>expect AT&T to ramp up very quickly once their logos and trademarks come
>back under their control. For all I know, their new AT&T-branded phones are
>already sitting in warehouses, ready to be put into service.

I personally think it will be a "soft" launch. AT&T is known for announcing
things with great fanfare, and then changing course.

>AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
>scratch over the next 5 years, but the prospect remains a possibility.

How so? Where would it get the spectrum?

>If
>they elect to go forward with it, they will still have Sprint's network--not
>a start-up operation--with which to service their customers. Frankly I
>would be surprised to learn that AT&T will remain a virtual wireless
>company, because they can't really control their own destiny while relying
>upon another company to provide it with a network backbone. But, as a
>short-term solution, the deal with Sprint was a masterful stroke. AT&T has
>a ready-made wireless network that they can sell beginning on day #1.

But not with much prospect of making much money, which I think makes it much
less than a "masterful stroke" -- more like another lame idea from AT&T. It's
just withdrawn from residential service due to a similar squeeze.

>I am glad to see that the AT&T brand will remain in the marketplace, I am
>glad at the prospect of continued competition on the wireless industry, and
>I am glad that, as a current ATTWS customer, I can always return to the AT&T
>brand if I don't like the way Cingular treats me when they acquire my
>account.

Why? Looks to me like AT&T will be way last in the market for the foreseeable
future -- makes more sense to go with SprintPCS.

>There may be a few bumps in the road, while this all sorts itself out, but
>in the long run I believe that it will all be advantageous for the consumer.
>How long before someone markets an unlimited plan for under $50 bucks a
>month? I can see it in my crystal ball right now . . .

I can't. Margins are too thin now, and spectrum is too tight.

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

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

In <_VxXc.5080$Y%[email protected]> on Fri, 27 Aug 2004
03:31:06 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'd be shocked if ATT limits itself to prepaid.

Me too.

>One thing we know is that
>the new ATT will be based on CDMA technology. ATT might remain a virtual
>carrier but eyeball CDMA licenses that are attractive.

Licenses are for spectrum, not technology.

>I'm not sure how
>many licenses Qwest owns, but they seem like a guard target? Alltell might
>be one as well.

I don't think there's enough non-3G spectrum available to matter.

>Also, ATT might start negotiating with Verizon for a
>similar virtual carrier status in some markets.

Why would Verizon do that? It's in a much stronger position that SprintPCS.

>One possibility that occured to me as I was writing this message is that ATT
>might decide to be a virtual carrier on CDMA, but launch a "from the ground"
>3g network keeping the virtual carrier status with Sprint as it builds its
>footprint, much like 3 has done in the UK.

Possible, but VERY expensive, so I personally doubt it.

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

Jeremy wrote:

[....]
>
> Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
>

Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
show.


[....]>


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_VxXc.5080$Y%[email protected]...

> ATT might be a virtual carrier, but nothing says that they will limit
> themselves to prepaid.

AT&T will NOT limit themselves to prepaid. They already announced that they
will do their own billing and customer service. They are buying network
access from Sprint. They are not buying Sprint's customer service, or
Sprint's roaming agreements or Sprint's billing.

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> [....]
> >
> > Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
> >
>
> Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
> ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
> show.
>

The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that the
AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was what I
meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name. Actually, NO
ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos from
ATTWS.

Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
"Cingular."

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

In <zAzXc.5171$Y%[email protected]> on Fri, 27 Aug 2004
05:24:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>
>> [....]
>> >
>> > Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
>> >
>>
>> Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
>> ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
>> show.
>
>The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that the
>AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was what I
>meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name. Actually, NO
>ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos from
>ATTWS.

This is technically a merger, not a transfer, so a non-transfer restriction
might not apply, depending on how the license is written. Have you seen the
actual terms?

>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>"Cingular."

Cingular is actually a joint venture of SBC and BellSouth.

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

In article <2yzXc.5170$Y%[email protected]>,
Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:

> AT&T will NOT limit themselves to prepaid. They already announced that they
> will do their own billing and customer service. They are buying network
> access from Sprint. They are not buying Sprint's customer service, or
> Sprint's roaming agreements or Sprint's billing.

Whose customer service will they be buying? They're certainly incapable
of providing it themselves...

--
spam delenda est

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

In <260820042320229803%[email protected]> on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:20:22 -0700,
John Groseclose <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <2yzXc.5170$Y%[email protected]>,
>Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> AT&T will NOT limit themselves to prepaid. They already announced that they
>> will do their own billing and customer service. They are buying network
>> access from Sprint. They are not buying Sprint's customer service, or
>> Sprint's roaming agreements or Sprint's billing.
>
>Whose customer service will they be buying? They're certainly incapable
>of providing it themselves...

AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.

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

ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are leasing
back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to the
TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through ATT.

My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS. Perhaps ATT tried
out ATT One as a means of testing the waters before rolling out a nationwide
program.


"Stanley Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> > will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> > with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> > cellular services under the brand.
>
> I think this is a result of AT&T protecting it's brand / cingular not
> willing to lease the brand name, don't think we will see a new AT&T
> wireless anytime soon. Unless some new spectrum is found we may see fewer
> national networks in the future. Could AT&T resell another provider's
> wireless under it's name yes, but only where not taking customers from
that
> provider.

Jeremy wrote:
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>>Cingular never had the option to keep the AT&T brand name.
>>>
>>
>>Cingular never once indicated they ever wanted the option of keeping the
>>ATTWS moniker. They've always been adamant about rebranding the entire
>>show.
>>
>
>
> The agreement AT&T had with its spun-off subsidiary, ATTWS, was that the
> AT&T brand name could not be transferred or sold by ATTWS. That was what I
> meant when I said Cingular never had the use of the AT&T name. Actually, NO
> ONE would have been able to acquire AT&T's brands, trademarks or logos from
> ATTWS.
>
> Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
> don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
> "Cingular."
>

Cingular Wireless is a jointly owned company between SBC and Bell South,
and as usual, the parents named their child. Presumably this was
intended to distinguish their wireless operations from their core
landline business.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur