Re: ATT PHONE CRAP

On 06 Jun 2007 21:22:41 GMT, /*..*\@/*..*\.:-) wrote in
<20070606172247.738$mt@newsreader.com>:

>What is up with these bastards? ATT breaks up, now they are changing
>everything back to their name and all it causes is confusion.
>
>ATT wireless changed to Cingular and now changed back again.
>What's the reasoning behind this crapola? Does anyone know?

AT&T is judged to be the better brand for the entire universe of
services offered by the company.

--
Best regards, MOTOROLA WIKI:
John Navas <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>

On 06 Jun 2007 22:16:53 GMT, /*..*\@/*..*\.:-) wrote in
<20070606181700.516$L0@newsreader.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On 06 Jun 2007 21:22:41 GMT, /*..*\@/*..*\.:-) wrote in
>> <20070606172247.738$mt@newsreader.com>:
>>
>> >What is up with these bastards? ATT breaks up, now they are changing
>> >everything back to their name and all it causes is confusion.
>> >
>> >ATT wireless changed to Cingular and now changed back again.
>> >What's the reasoning behind this crapola? Does anyone know?
>>
>> AT&T is judged to be the better brand for the entire universe of
>> services offered by the company.
>
>Better brand? They broke up the ATT monopoly and now they
>re-assemble it? Something stinks.

Your socks?

p.s. There's no monopoly.

--
Best regards, MOTOROLA WIKI:
John Navas <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>

On 6/13/07 2:23 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2007 22:16:53 GMT, /*..*\@/*..*\.:-) wrote in
> <20070606181700.516$L0@newsreader.com>:
>
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On 06 Jun 2007 21:22:41 GMT, /*..*\@/*..*\.:-) wrote in
>>> <20070606172247.738$mt@newsreader.com>:
>>>
>>>> What is up with these bastards? ATT breaks up, now they are changing
>>>> everything back to their name and all it causes is confusion.
>>>>
>>>> ATT wireless changed to Cingular and now changed back again.
>>>> What's the reasoning behind this crapola? Does anyone know?
>>> AT&T is judged to be the better brand for the entire universe of
>>> services offered by the company.
>> Better brand? They broke up the ATT monopoly and now they
>> re-assemble it? Something stinks.
>
> Your socks?
>
> p.s. There's no monopoly.
>

I believe ATT was forced to sell ATT Wireless as part of a cable acquisitio.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:43:30 -0500, Dan <dan@nospamstuff.com> wrote in
<4671d2a3$0$20540$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>On 6/13/07 2:23 AM, John Navas wrote:

>> p.s. There's no monopoly.
>
>I believe ATT was forced to sell ATT Wireless as part of a cable acquisitio.

It was actually a voluntary spin-off and divestiture:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Telephone_%26_Telegraph#Break_up.2C_spino ffs_and_restructuring>

--
Best regards, MOTOROLA WIKI:
John Navas <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>