FAQ: Don't ATTWS and Cingular subscribers now have the same coverage?

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

In <kfZ%[email protected]> on Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:33:52
GMT, "RJ" <[email protected]> wrote:

>admittedly Mr. Navas has angered me due to his curt nature,

My sincerely apologies for any offense that I've given. I personally think my
style is more "terse" than "curt" but I respect that it might not seem that
way to you.

>however in this
>case your immaturity is rising to the occasion. In this case you are correct
>that the plans in question are Cingular plans, however.... Are you familiar
>with the term "legacy" or "Archive" as it applies to business? These
>"legacy" or "Archive" plans have no bearing on the original question posted
>and have nothing to do with how the two networks interoperate.
>
>The two of you and your constant badgering have fallen well off of the point
>at hand and have shown an absolutely miserable level of intelligence.

Again, my apologies -- I've tried just ignoring folks like him, but it just
seems to encourage and embolden them.

>I ceased following this news group several months ago and now, the first
>time I come back the group is clogged with your crap!
>
>Best regards to the original poster.... and Mr. Navas for that matter as it
>pertains to this posting.
>...

Thank you. It truly unfortunate that Usenet has been so badly spoiled by rude
and immature people, but the problem can be substantially overcome by
appropriate filtering in your Usenet client (aka killfile). For more
information, see <http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm>.

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

---

› See More: FAQ: Don't ATTWS and Cingular subscribers now have the same coverage?

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:08:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <UGZ%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It truly unfortunate that Usenet has been so badly spoiled by rude
>> and immature people,
>
>Worse, that it's been trashed by self-important assholes like Navas, who
>think the world spins around them and who think that whatever they say
>is de facto the truth.
>
>Or is that the Truth?

The original poster was probably an intelligent person who was, I'm
sure, able to read your first post on the topic and also Navas' first
post. At which point they were able to make their own intelligent
decision on what the answer was.

So why have the two of you insisted on bombarbed the net with your
useless trivia? Mr. Shagnasty you consider Mr. Navas to be an asshole.
Guess what, I consider both of you to be assholes.

>
>
>Nope. Those rate plans were never offered by Cingular. They were offered by
>ATTWS. The surviving entity (which uses the Cingular name) now owns the
>contracts of both predecessor firms.
>

There are no "two" predecessor firms. Cingular, the joint venture
between SBC and BellSouth, paid cash for AT&T Wireless's assets on the
day they ceased to operate. They went out of business. Cingular bought
assets (including customers) and assumed debt. That's all there is to
it. Cash sale upon termination of the corporation as an entity.

>They only become (new) Cingular rate
>plans in the event of a switch in rate plan to a (new) Cingular offering.
>Until then they are still (legacy) ATTWS rate plans.
>
>
>

>>[SNIP remaining uninformed rant and usual discourtesy]
>>
>>
>
>You need to learn something about mergers and acquisitions. And some manners.
>
>
Legally, it was an acquisition.

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

In <wqj0f.34$Rk5.16@lakeread06> on Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:47:50 -0400, Tropical
Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Nope. Those rate plans were never offered by Cingular. They were offered by
>>ATTWS. The surviving entity (which uses the Cingular name) now owns the
>>contracts of both predecessor firms.
>
>There are no "two" predecessor firms. Cingular, the joint venture
>between SBC and BellSouth, paid cash for AT&T Wireless's assets on the
>day they ceased to operate. They went out of business. Cingular bought
>assets (including customers) and assumed debt. That's all there is to
>it. Cash sale upon termination of the corporation as an entity.

In fact this was a merger, not a sale of assets and liabilities, a big
difference.

>>You need to learn something about mergers and acquisitions. And some manners.
>>
>Legally, it was an acquisition.

Legally, it was actually a merger.
<http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/cingular-att_wireless.html>:

This transfer of control will take place as a result of a proposed *merger*
whereby AT&T Wireless will become an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Cingular. [emphasis added]

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

John Navas wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <wqj0f.34$Rk5.16@lakeread06> on Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:47:50 -0400, Tropical
>Haven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Nope. Those rate plans were never offered by Cingular. They were offered by
>>>ATTWS. The surviving entity (which uses the Cingular name) now owns the
>>>contracts of both predecessor firms.
>>>
>>>
>>There are no "two" predecessor firms. Cingular, the joint venture
>>between SBC and BellSouth, paid cash for AT&T Wireless's assets on the
>>day they ceased to operate. They went out of business. Cingular bought
>>assets (including customers) and assumed debt. That's all there is to
>>it. Cash sale upon termination of the corporation as an entity.
>>
>>
>
>In fact this was a merger, not a sale of assets and liabilities, a big
>difference.
>
>
>
>>>You need to learn something about mergers and acquisitions. And some manners.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Legally, it was an acquisition.
>>
>>
>
>Legally, it was actually a merger.
><http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/cingular-att_wireless.html>:
>
> This transfer of control will take place as a result of a proposed *merger*
> whereby AT&T Wireless will become an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
> Cingular. [emphasis added]
>
>
>
Just because one citation uses the word merger, does not mean it is
legally a merger. The networks will be merged, yes. But there was no
transfer of control from the Old Cingular to the New Cingular of
licenses. And, if I'm not mistaken, AT&T Wireless is not even a wholly
owned subsidiary of Cingular, it became a *division*.

There are mergers with operations, and acquisitions. For example, was
there a "Ford-Volvo merger" or did Ford purchase Volvo?

TH

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

In <Smu0f.164$Rk5.91@lakeread06> on Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:14:54 -0400, Tropical
Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>>In <wqj0f.34$Rk5.16@lakeread06> on Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:47:50 -0400, Tropical
>>Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>There are no "two" predecessor firms. Cingular, the joint venture
>>>between SBC and BellSouth, paid cash for AT&T Wireless's assets on the
>>>day they ceased to operate. They went out of business. Cingular bought
>>>assets (including customers) and assumed debt. That's all there is to
>>>it. Cash sale upon termination of the corporation as an entity.

>>In fact this was a merger, not a sale of assets and liabilities, a big
>>difference.

>>>Legally, it was an acquisition.

>>Legally, it was actually a merger.
>><http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/cingular-att_wireless.html>:
>>
>> This transfer of control will take place as a result of a proposed *merger*
>> whereby AT&T Wireless will become an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
>> Cingular. [emphasis added]
>>
>Just because one citation uses the word merger, does not mean it is
>legally a merger.

All of the relevant documentation refers to it as a merger.

>The networks will be merged, yes. But there was no
>transfer of control from the Old Cingular to the New Cingular of
>licenses. And, if I'm not mistaken, AT&T Wireless is not even a wholly
>owned subsidiary of Cingular, it became a *division*.
>
>There are mergers with operations, and acquisitions. For example, was
>there a "Ford-Volvo merger" or did Ford purchase Volvo?

That was an acquisition, as compared to Chrysler and Daimler-Benz, which was a
merger.

For the accounting (legal) distinctions, see "FRS 6, Acquisitions and mergers"
at <http://www.accaglobal.com/publications/studentaccountant/28346>. In the
legal context, this is what really matters, and the proof is in the
financials.

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