"Say goodbye, then hello to AT&T phones"

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that AT&T itself is the
inspiration for the original "Ernestine the Operator" sketch by Lily
Tomlin.

--
spam delenda est

---

› See More: "Say goodbye, then hello to AT&T phones"

"John Groseclose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:260820042320229803%[email protected]...

>
> Whose customer service will they be buying? They're certainly incapable
> of providing it themselves...
>

They will be providing it themselves, not buying it from Sprint.

ATT's customer service--before they spun off ATTWS--was pretty good. And,
despite what others have posted about the current ATTWS' customer service, I
have always been lucky enough to have had pleasant experiences with them.

But the NEW AT&T wireless will have AT&T customer service--provided by the
"original" AT&T, not by the current unrelated company known as ATTWS. ATTWS
will cease to exist after the Cingular acquisition.

"Carl Keehn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are leasing
> back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
> distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to the
> TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through
ATT.
>
> My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS.


Are you certain of this? AT&T sold/leased the rights to their trademarks,
brand and logos to ATTWS when they spun it off. So how can they be using
those things now?

Maybe you are being BILLED by AT&T and your wireless service is
subcontracted out to the unrelated company, ATTWS. That would seem more
likely.

What will happen when AT&T begins offering their virtual wireless service
using Sprint's network? TDMA phones will be incompatible with Sprint PCS'
facilities. Surely AT&T will not be offering two incompatible services,
will they?

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> Cingular Wireless is a jointly owned company between SBC and Bell South,
> and as usual, the parents named their child. Presumably this was
> intended to distinguish their wireless operations from their core
> landline business.
>

One would think that they would get more mileage by using a songle name for
everything--like Verizon does. But now that you mention that it is not
owned solely by SBC, it becomes easier to understand. Bell South might not
like their half of the investment being named after their partner, rather
than themselves.

"John Groseclose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:270820040603160292%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.
>
> I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that AT&T itself is the
> inspiration for the original "Ernestine the Operator" sketch by Lily
> Tomlin.
>

Well, if you are suggesting that AT&T is substandard, I would remind you
that they were the ones primarily responsible for universal telephone
service in this country. They had monopolistic pricing, but they did offer
excellent service.

They were a victim of technology evolution. Who ever thought that we would
have so many long distance carriers--only to see their product priced down
to zero only two decades after divestiture?

I remember when everybody was scrambling to take AT&Ts long distance
customers. Now I get free long distance on my wireless phone. Not the
$10/hour "Reach Out America" or MCI "Friends & Family" rates--but completely
FREE.

Imagine the frustration of having built a huge long distance backbone, only
to see your service produce virtually no revenue!

How long before GSM and CDMA are obsolete, and all the investment made in
those technologies becomes obsolete? Who will invest in technology
companies when the prospects of making a profit are so uncertain?

Given what AT&T has been through over the past 20 years, I applaud the fact
that they have managed to continue to exist. Most other companies would
have given up the ghost by now.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:24:47 GMT, "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Cingular is owned by SBC Communications. I am still curious as to why they
>don't standardize on the SBC name, rather than that silly moniker,
>"Cingular."

Probably because the "Jacks" man (not to be confused with Hugh
Jackman) is a cute funky spokesobject.

Just yesterday I was accosted by the yellow AOL mascot on Broadway who
was trying to hawk AOL broadband. I'd be all for a death match
between the AOL guy and the MSN butterfly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Groseclose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:270820040603160292%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > AT&T is unrelated to ATTWS.
> >
> > I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that AT&T itself is the
> > inspiration for the original "Ernestine the Operator" sketch by Lily
> > Tomlin.
> >
>
> Well, if you are suggesting that AT&T is substandard, I would remind you
> that they were the ones primarily responsible for universal telephone
> service in this country. They had monopolistic pricing, but they did offer
> excellent service.

Far from it. ATT *service* is exemplary - it's just that their
*customer service* is still indicative of their old "We're the Phone
Company - we don't HAVE to care" mindset.

ATTWS, on the other hand, apparently lacks the competency to manage
their own SMS-blasting network.

--
spam delenda est

I assume that ATT's new wireless provider will not be called ATT Wireless.
ATT One sounds like as good a name as any.

With respect to the rebranding of ATT Wireless, I note that for a long time
there were rumors floating that ATTWS was going to be come "M-Life." I also
note that Rogers has dropped the ATT name from their wireless service.


"Carl Keehn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are leasing
> back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
> distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to the
> TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through
ATT.
>
> My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS. Perhaps ATT
tried
> out ATT One as a means of testing the waters before rolling out a
nationwide
> program.
>
>
> "Stanley Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> > > will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> > > with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> > > cellular services under the brand.
> >
> > I think this is a result of AT&T protecting it's brand / cingular not
> > willing to lease the brand name, don't think we will see a new AT&T
> > wireless anytime soon. Unless some new spectrum is found we may see
fewer
> > national networks in the future. Could AT&T resell another provider's
> > wireless under it's name yes, but only where not taking customers from
> that
> > provider.
>
>

>AT&T has not disclosed whether they intend to build a new network from
>scratch over the next 5 years

How can they - they do not have the spectrum nor is any available.


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

Lemme tell ya....I had Verizon. I had Verizon for years. I got sick of the
terrible hardware lineup and the horrible customer service over the years.
I've been through the ringer with this company, literally stealing my money.
Yea, their network worked everywhere. I pretty much had signal where ever I
went. Anyway, I dumped the piece of **** company and signed up with AT&T and
Cingular at the same time. AT&T was cool, although Cingular was awesome.
I've been all over the state of NJ and Cingular has been there with good
signal bars just like Verizon has been. To this day my Cingular service has
been superior then Verizon ever was. No more dropped packets or "weird"
sounds. Certainly no more dropped calls out of no where and not to mention
extra benefits that Verizon would go out of business if they gave 'em out.
I'm sticking to Cingular. Their coverage to me is just as good and sound
quality better then Verizon ever was and their hardware lineup is unlimited
since I can unlock any GSM phone and use it with a SIM card. I literally
have the ability to use ANY cellular phone on the market except the ones
made for Verizon. That's a whole **** load of phones with no limitations. If
you're thinking of dumping Verizon, go ahead...you might be very surprised
like I was and love the new hardware and great reception and awesome
benefits of another company.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...less_branding/>
>
> Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> cellular services under the brand.
>
> ...
>
> By the end of the year, when the merger is expected to be completed,
> the two largest US cellphone carriers - Verizon and Cingular - will
> not only be former Baby Bells, but two synthetic brands based on very
> bad puns.
>
> [MORE]
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Killer Madness" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've been through the ringer with this company,

That sounds more painful than having been through the wringer with the
company.

(Of course, young people today know only telephones and the like; they
know nothing of hand washing clothes with washboards to wash and
wringers to wring the water out of them...)

"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Carl Keehn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ATT is already offering wireless service in some areas. They are
leasing
> > back the digital spectrum from ATTWS and offer a bundled long
> > distance/wireless package called "ATT One." Coverage is equivalent to
the
> > TDMA national network, customer service and support are offered through
> ATT.
> >
> > My ATT wireless service is through ATT rather than ATTWS.
>
>
> Are you certain of this? AT&T sold/leased the rights to their trademarks,
> brand and logos to ATTWS when they spun it off. So how can they be using
> those things now?

Yes, I am certain of this. They have been offering this program for a bit
less than a year now. It is only in limited areas at the present


>
> Maybe you are being BILLED by AT&T and your wireless service is
> subcontracted out to the unrelated company, ATTWS. That would seem more
> likely.
>
> What will happen when AT&T begins offering their virtual wireless service
> using Sprint's network? TDMA phones will be incompatible with Sprint PCS'
> facilities. Surely AT&T will not be offering two incompatible services,
> will they?


I have been wondering that myself. I guess I will find out in a few months.
Most likely, those on ATT One will continue with ATT One for the foreseeable
future, I would suspect that the TDMA spectrum was leased for an extended
period of time. When ATT rolled out their Sprint service, they would then
offer that one nationwide, perhaps they would "Encourage" ATT One users to
migrate over, similar to the conversion from Digital to GSM.

Carl

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:21:56 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That sounds more painful than having been through the wringer with the
>company.

The wringer??

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <[email protected]>,
Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:

> >That sounds more painful than having been through the wringer with the
> >company.
>
> The wringer??

The wringer. Which is what he meant. Instead, he said "the
ringer"--which is meaningless.

John,

All this assumes that the merger will go through.

Chip

John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...less_branding/>
>
> Cingular, soon to be the United States' largest cellular network,
> will drop the AT&T brand six months after it completes its merger
> with AT&T Wireless. After that, AT&T will be free to launch its own
> cellular services under the brand.
>
> ...
>
> By the end of the year, when the merger is expected to be completed,
> the two largest US cellphone carriers - Verizon and Cingular - will
> not only be former Baby Bells, but two synthetic brands based on very
> bad puns.
>
> [MORE]
>