Goodbye Cingular, Hello AT&T

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...t_x.htm?csp=34

---

› See More: Goodbye Cingular, Hello AT&T

Wade wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...t_x.htm?csp=34
>

I wonder how many people who were originally AT&T Wireless customers who
had to go out and get a new phone with the Cingular brand, will now have
to go and get another new branded phone to look cool ;-0

Hope we can get back some of the AT&T customer relations like service
and plans..

D

"Dylan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:T5ogf.5117
>
> I wonder how many people who were originally AT&T Wireless customers who
> had to go out and get a new phone with the Cingular brand, will now have
> to go and get another new branded phone to look cool ;-0
>

I just reactivated my old Ericsson T19LX, which I used on ATTWS, and the
display changed from reading "AT&T" to "CINGULAR."

I wonder how long it will take before they change it yet again, to "at&t?"
(Note that the new AT&T Logo has switched to all lower-case letters.

http://www.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=7521#color

Well, looks like they won't . I guess Ed's comments were misquoted in
the USA today article.
Still is't going to be confusing.
http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=24896

It is alleged that Wade claimed:

> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...t_x.htm?csp=34

WTF? After all the time, money and effort they went through to kill
the AT&T Wireless name/service?

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"Interesting. Do you know that the odds of this particular combination
are five thousand to one against?" "Lennier." "Yes Londo?" "Stop
that." "Does that mean I've won again?" (Lennier and Amb. Mollari, B5
"The Quality of Mercy")

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

In <[email protected]> on 21 Nov 2005
09:34:36 -0800, "Wade" <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...t_x.htm?csp=34

Never, ever take something in USA Today at face value without checking other,
more serious, sources.

While SBC is assuming the AT&T name, AT&T Wireless may refer only to wireless
service sold by "the new AT&T" -- see "AT&T To Sell Branded Wireless"
<http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6285901.html>

"This is not a surprise, because when the Cingular joint venture was
created, we anticipated (our parents) might want to offer wireless
services under their own brands," says Cingular Wireless spokesman
Mark Siegel. Cingular is a joint venture of AT&T (formerly SBC) and
BellSouth Corporation. Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless last year.

"Mr. Whitacre's comments changes in no way how we will market
Cingular. Our size and national presence is an advantage for our
parents," Siegel says.

[MORE]

BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own
branding.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> WTF? After all the time, money and effort they went through to kill
> the AT&T Wireless name/service?
>

The name "AT&T" was probably THE most valuable component of the buyout for
SBC. Remember that the reason that they retained the name Cingular when the
two wireless companies merged was that they were required to surrender the
AT&T name back to its owner, AT&T. Now that SBC IS AT&T, they can do what
they probably wished they could do all along--sell everything under one
brand.

"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bPFgf.12982$NN2.2145@trnddc02...
>
> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> WTF? After all the time, money and effort they went through to kill
>> the AT&T Wireless name/service?
>>
>
> The name "AT&T" was probably THE most valuable component of the buyout for
> SBC. Remember that the reason that they retained the name Cingular when
> the two wireless companies merged was that they were required to surrender
> the AT&T name back to its owner, AT&T. Now that SBC IS AT&T, they can do
> what they probably wished they could do all along--sell everything under
> one brand.
its at&t

TerryS

Jeremy wrote:

> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>WTF? After all the time, money and effort they went through to kill
>>the AT&T Wireless name/service?
>>
>
>
> The name "AT&T" was probably THE most valuable component of the buyout for
> SBC. Remember that the reason that they retained the name Cingular when the
> two wireless companies merged was that they were required to surrender the
> AT&T name back to its owner, AT&T. Now that SBC IS AT&T, they can do what
> they probably wished they could do all along--sell everything under one
> brand.
>
>


Wait til they tear down all the GSM towers and replace them
with TDMA! And you have to buy a new TDMA phone when your
GSM coverage gets worse than it already is ;-)

-larry / dallas

(and I told you it would become ATT a month ago right here!)

"larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Wait til they tear down all the GSM towers and replace them with TDMA!
> And you have to buy a new TDMA phone when your GSM coverage gets worse
> than it already is ;-)
>

This is about the dumbest post I've read. Even if the name change rumer were
true why would they go backwards in technology?

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

In <%[email protected]> on Wed, 23 Nov
2005 13:54:03 GMT, "JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:%[email protected]...
>> Wait til they tear down all the GSM towers and replace them with TDMA!
>> And you have to buy a new TDMA phone when your GSM coverage gets worse
>> than it already is ;-)
>
>This is about the dumbest post I've read. Even if the name change rumer were
>true why would they go backwards in technology?

Kickstart your humor mode!

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

JohnF wrote:

> "larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>Wait til they tear down all the GSM towers and replace them with TDMA!
>>And you have to buy a new TDMA phone when your GSM coverage gets worse
>>than it already is ;-)
>>
>
>
> This is about the dumbest post I've read. Even if the name change rumer were
> true why would they go backwards in technology?
>
>

It's what cingular did to us attws customers.

I believe in fairness both ways ;-)

Go look at some of my other posts, I try to accommodate
everyone. Your plonk or kill file is just only keystroke away.

-larry / dallas

Everyone have a great Thanksgiving!

I'm thankful for all the nice folks on the news-groups, that
have shared the good -and- bad things in life.

larry wrote:
> JohnF wrote:
>
>> "larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:%[email protected]...
>>
>>> Wait til they tear down all the GSM towers and replace them with
>>> TDMA! And you have to buy a new TDMA phone when your GSM coverage
>>> gets worse than it already is ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is about the dumbest post I've read. Even if the name change
>> rumer were true why would they go backwards in technology?
>>
>
> It's what cingular did to us attws customers.

Well look at what AT&T did to some of their own customers when they
began the GSM conversion. They sold 1900 Mhz GSM phones, then built a
bunch of GSM cells that were 800 Mhz only.

"JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
>
> "larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>> Wait til they tear down all the GSM towers and replace them with TDMA!
>> And you have to buy a new TDMA phone when your GSM coverage gets worse
>> than it already is ;-)
>>
>
> This is about the dumbest post I've read. Even if the name change rumer
> were true why would they go backwards in technology?
>

I believe that the post may have contained a hint of sarcasm . . .

Jeremy wrote:
> "Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>WTF? After all the time, money and effort they went through to kill
>>the AT&T Wireless name/service?
>>
>
>
> The name "AT&T" was probably THE most valuable component of the buyout for
> SBC.

It would have been, but they didn't get the name. Now that they are
buying AT&T they do get it.