Rebranding ATT Wireless stores?

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:46:15
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:38 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
>>straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
>>port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
>>- why should he have to accept a changed number?)
>
>Exactly -- and given the problems that were reported Monday with
>former AT&T Wireless not being able to access legacy Cingular
>infrastructure and vice versa, I'd say they have bigger fish to fry
>right now than signage.

I personally don't think these problems (ATTWS mMode roaming on Cingular,
number porting) were unexpected or terribly significant -- only a small
percentage of subscribers would seem to be affected, and it shouldn't be hard
to correct them. I think most things seem to be working surprisingly well.

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

---

› See More: Rebranding ATT Wireless stores?

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 Nov
2004 14:58:05 GMT, FUDMEISTER Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.
>
>The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
>on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores On
>November 15,

They are.

>and after all John Navas said the back office software was
>compatible and integration would be easy.

That's not what I said.

>WHAT WENT WRONG ?

Nothing. Going surprisingly well, your attempts to spread FUD
notwithstanding.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:58:05 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:38 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> >> >said in alt.cellular:
> >> >
> >> >>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
> >> >>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?
> >> >
> >> >Rebranding the stores?
> >> >
> >> >I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
> >> >straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
> >> >port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
> >> >- why should he have to accept a changed number?)
> >>
> >> Exactly -- and given the problems that were reported Monday with
> >> former AT&T Wireless not being able to access legacy Cingular
> >> infrastructure and vice versa, I'd say they have bigger fish to fry
> >> right now than signage.
> >> >
> >> >They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.
> >
> >The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
> >on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores On
> >November 15, and after all John Navas said the back office software was
> >compatible and integration would be easy.
> >
> >WHAT WENT WRONG ?
>
> First off, do you honestly not realize the difference between "would
> be" and "are now"? The wording in their release implies something that
> will happen in the future, not happening now.

Duh, it's after November 15.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 Nov
2004 16:49:19 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>> First off, do you honestly not realize the difference between "would
>> be" and "are now"? The wording in their release implies something that
>> will happen in the future, not happening now.
>
>Duh, it's after November 15.

FUD (and pathetic FUD at that).

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

Jack Zwick wrote:

> The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
> on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores On
> November 15,

And they are.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:35:41 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:46:15
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:49:38 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
>>>straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
>>>port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
>>>- why should he have to accept a changed number?)
>>
>>Exactly -- and given the problems that were reported Monday with
>>former AT&T Wireless not being able to access legacy Cingular
>>infrastructure and vice versa, I'd say they have bigger fish to fry
>>right now than signage.
>
>I personally don't think these problems (ATTWS mMode roaming on Cingular,
>number porting) were unexpected or terribly significant -- only a small
>percentage of subscribers would seem to be affected, and it shouldn't be hard
>to correct them. I think most things seem to be working surprisingly well.

I would agree. Just pointing out that things like this are bound to
happen and you can't fault a company for focusing more on things that
impact the bottom line than the things Jack is complaining about.

On a somewhat related note, I was surprised to hear from a friend that
was a long-time ATTWS subscriber that they were still offering TDMA
handset upgrades. This person got hers within the last couple of
months. I would have thought they would have steered everyone to a GSM
handset and a GSM plan. I know Cingular did that with a lot of their
customers once the overlay was completed.

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> I would agree. Just pointing out that things like this are bound to
> happen

Cingular is perfect, nothing can go wrang. NAVAS

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I would agree. Just pointing out that things like this are bound to
>>happen
>
>
> Cingular is perfect, nothing can go wrang. NAVAS

That's basically the attitude you took in alt.cellular.sprintpcs when leaving
Sprint for Cingular.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:20:16
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:35:41 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>I personally don't think these problems (ATTWS mMode roaming on Cingular,
>>number porting) were unexpected or terribly significant -- only a small
>>percentage of subscribers would seem to be affected, and it shouldn't be hard
>>to correct them. I think most things seem to be working surprisingly well.
>
>I would agree. Just pointing out that things like this are bound to
>happen and you can't fault a company for focusing more on things that
>impact the bottom line than the things Jack is complaining about.

Indeed.

>On a somewhat related note, I was surprised to hear from a friend that
>was a long-time ATTWS subscriber that they were still offering TDMA
>handset upgrades. This person got hers within the last couple of
>months. I would have thought they would have steered everyone to a GSM
>handset and a GSM plan. I know Cingular did that with a lot of their
>customers once the overlay was completed.

Until the dust has settled, I think Cingular is prepared to do whatever it
takes to get ATTWS subscribers on longer-term contracts, as protection against
a surge in churn, even if that means staying on TDMA for now.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 Nov
2004 18:38:54 GMT, FUDMEISTER Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I would agree. Just pointing out that things like this are bound to
>> happen
>
>Cingular is perfect, nothing can go wrang. NAVAS

The sky is falling. Chicken Little ZWICK.

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

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:58:05 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
said in alt.cellular:

>The point is they released Press Releases patting themselves on the back
>on November 14 saying AT&T Wireless stores would be Cingular stores

Former AT&T stores ARE Cingular stores now. They didn't say anything
about former AT&T signs.

>WHAT WENT WRONG ?

Reality reared up and bit them on the ass.

Al Klein wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> said in alt.cellular:
>
>
>>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
>>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?
>
>
> Rebranding the stores?
>
> I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
> straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
> port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
> - why should he have to accept a changed number?)
>
> They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.

Just switched from ATTW to Cingular. Since I was on a family plan I
couldn't do it on line but went to a local Cingular store. No problems!
New phones we wanted, old numbers ported within minutes and great
service!!! Can't complain.

In article <[email protected]>,
Jim Burke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Al Klein wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> > said in alt.cellular:
> >
> >
> >>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
> >>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?
> >
> >
> > Rebranding the stores?
> >
> > I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
> > straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
> > port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
> > - why should he have to accept a changed number?)
> >
> > They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.
>
> Just switched from ATTW to Cingular. Since I was on a family plan I
> couldn't do it on line but went to a local Cingular store. No problems!
> New phones we wanted, old numbers ported within minutes and great
> service!!! Can't complain.

Fine, but the complaint was that was all supposed to also happen at
(former?) ATTWS stores as of Nov 15, but it aint so. ATTWS stores have
switched over only in Cingular press releases.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Fine, but the complaint was that was all supposed to also happen at
> (former?) ATTWS stores as of Nov 15, but it aint so. ATTWS stores have
> switched over only in Cingular press releases.

But even you said they had Cingular signs in the stores. That would make
them Cingular stores. And it happen on the 15th, so quit your whining- this
is a non-issue and has no bearing on anything important, other than your
need to ***** about something.

Why in the world do you care what sign is on the building, it could be
"Harry's Mule Barn" and make no difference, as long as you are still
getting your cellphone service with no problems!!


"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jim Burke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Al Klein wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:40:23 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> > > said in alt.cellular:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Cant adequately address the issue of Cingular doing a POOR job of
> > >>rebranding AT&T Wireless stores?
> > >
> > >
> > > Rebranding the stores?
> > >
> > > I'd settle for activations that didn't take 4 hours on the phone to
> > > straighten out the foul-ups, lack of product availability, refusal to
> > > port AT&T numbers (as far as the customer is concerned, he's upgrading
> > > - why should he have to accept a changed number?)
> > >
> > > They can brand the stores anything they like for as long as they like.
> >
> > Just switched from ATTW to Cingular. Since I was on a family plan I
> > couldn't do it on line but went to a local Cingular store. No problems!
> > New phones we wanted, old numbers ported within minutes and great
> > service!!! Can't complain.
>
> Fine, but the complaint was that was all supposed to also happen at
> (former?) ATTWS stores as of Nov 15, but it aint so. ATTWS stores have
> switched over only in Cingular press releases.