Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
  1. #16
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "carcarx" <[email protected]> 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.



    See More: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint




  2. #17
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    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 / [email protected] / 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)



  3. #18
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    > 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







  4. #19
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    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.



  5. #20
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    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.



  6. #21
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint



    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?




  7. #22
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint


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

    >
    > 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/ticker...LINE000739.htm

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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





  8. #23
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    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.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12