Going from ATTWS to Cingular

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

>
> "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> >
> > ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> > the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> > Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> > does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>
> AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
> customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. You may be
> underestimating the effect of brand loyalty. I have zero reason to be loyal
> to Cingular. I chose AT&T. I will probably choose AT&T again.

You'll be sorry when the new ATTWS using the SprintPCS network can't
give you a signal indoors, or you get find one of the myriad dead zones
in the Network not shown on their coverage maps.

---

› See More: Going from ATTWS to Cingular

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 15:33:39 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Jim Gilliland <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
> >> while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.
> >
> >It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.
> >
> >Cingular still hasnt integrated the pieces/parts that were combined to
> >form Cingular 4 years ago.
>
> The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is the
> number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This integration
> actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.

As I've posted every day this week and you choose to ignore, prior
integrations haven't even happened yet. SNET, SWB, PacBell, Ameritech
pieces etc., STILL are not integrated, and thats after 4 years.

The only thing EASY about integrating ATTWS is Navas saying it's easy.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 15:38:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> It may actually decrease churn, in part because customers leaving ATTWS for
>> Cingular will no longer be churn.
>
>But customers leaving zCingular will no longer go to ATTWS/

Then they may not leave at all. (You really can't have it both ways

>> >Whatever the numbers, it will contribute to Verizon overtaking the New
>> >Cingular as largest carrier.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>When customers leave ATTWS/Cingular for Verizon that doesn't speed up
>the day Verizon overtakes Cingular as largest carrier?
>Only in your fantasy world Navas.

I've already shown with real number that it's unlikely.

>> >My prediction of it happening in 2 years
>> >may be beaten by a large margin.
>>
>> I'd be happy to take that bet.
>
>I don't bet. The last time I bet, the fellow was positive Dole would
>beat Clinton in 1996.

In other words, you're just blowing smoke.

>I will save this post for the day (sooner than you'll ever admit) when
>you can eat crow as Verizon again becomes number 1.

Knock yourself out.

>> >ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
>> >the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT.
>>
>> Perhaps. Time will tell.
>
>Not perhaps, its in the purchase agreement.

Cingular must stop using the brand, but nothing in the purchase agreement (or
anyplace else) confirms that "ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months."

>> >ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
>> >Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
>> >does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
>>
>> Reason for loyalty: AT&T did a better job of customer service than ATTWS, and
>> was an innovator in cellular rate plans.
>
>Reason for disloyalty - dropped called, poor coverage, Network issues.

Irrelevant.

>New Network for the new ATTWS.

SprintPCS gets better satisfaction ratings than the old ATTWS..

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 15:53:01 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is the
>> number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This integration
>> actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.
>
>As I've posted every day this week and you choose to ignore, prior
>integrations haven't even happened yet. SNET, SWB, PacBell, Ameritech
>pieces etc., STILL are not integrated, and thats after 4 years.

As I wrote (and you ignore), this integration actually looks to be easier than
prior integrations.

>The only thing EASY about integrating ATTWS is Navas saying it's easy.

You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

In article <[email protected]>,
Jim Gilliland <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Jim Gilliland <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>But I haven't actually gone to a store and asked. Sometimes it takes a
> >>while to change the systems and to educate the workforce.
> >
> > It will take years when you're dealing with 20,000,000 + Users.
>
> But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
> turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
> Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.

It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
doing that?

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:00:36 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Jim Gilliland <[email protected]> wrote:

>> But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
>> turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
>> Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.
>
>It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
>doing that?

Because it wouldn't. Cingular is simply offering Cingular rate plans to
former ATTWS subscribers. <http://www.newcingular.com/a_overview.html>
No porting required.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:00:36 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Jim Gilliland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> But that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about
> >> turning off one particular option - the porting of ATTWS numbers to
> >> Cingular. I see no reason for Cingular to have much trouble doing that.
> >
> >It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
> >doing that?
>
> Because it wouldn't. Cingular is simply offering Cingular rate plans to
> former ATTWS subscribers. <http://www.newcingular.com/a_overview.html>
> No porting required.

They plan to, you mean. Read your own link.

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 15:53:01 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is
> >> the
> >> number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This
> >> integration
> >> actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.
> >
> >As I've posted every day this week and you choose to ignore, prior
> >integrations haven't even happened yet. SNET, SWB, PacBell, Ameritech
> >pieces etc., STILL are not integrated, and thats after 4 years.
>
> As I wrote (and you ignore), this integration actually looks to be easier
> than
> prior integrations.
>
> >The only thing EASY about integrating ATTWS is Navas saying it's easy.
>
> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.

I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
perfect".

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 15:38:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It may actually decrease churn, in part because customers leaving ATTWS
> >> for
> >> Cingular will no longer be churn.
> >
> >But customers leaving zCingular will no longer go to ATTWS/
>
> Then they may not leave at all. (You really can't have it both ways

Right. Churn will disappear. DREAM ON.

>
> >> >Whatever the numbers, it will contribute to Verizon overtaking the New
> >> >Cingular as largest carrier.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.
> >
> >When customers leave ATTWS/Cingular for Verizon that doesn't speed up
> >the day Verizon overtakes Cingular as largest carrier?
> >Only in your fantasy world Navas.
>
> I've already shown with real number that it's unlikely.

No you haven't

>
> >> >My prediction of it happening in 2 years
> >> >may be beaten by a large margin.
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to take that bet.
> >
> >I don't bet. The last time I bet, the fellow was positive Dole would
> >beat Clinton in 1996.
>
> In other words, you're just blowing smoke.

I don't bet. You're blowing smoke that Verizon's growth rate (double
that of Cingular) will somehow slow down, and ATTWS with its flatline,
will somehow balloon. EVERY INDUSTRY ANALYST predicts Verizon will
overtake the new Cingular as largest carrier in 1 to 2 years.


>
> >I will save this post for the day (sooner than you'll ever admit) when
> >you can eat crow as Verizon again becomes number 1.
>
> Knock yourself out.
>
> >> >ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> >> >the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. Time will tell.
> >
> >Not perhaps, its in the purchase agreement.
>
> Cingular must stop using the brand, but nothing in the purchase agreement (or
> anyplace else) confirms that "ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months."

Nothing? Navas you are so out of it! Just press releases by ATT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May18.html

>
> >> >ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> >> >Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> >> >does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
> >>
> >> Reason for loyalty: AT&T did a better job of customer service than ATTWS,
> >> and
> >> was an innovator in cellular rate plans.
> >
> >Reason for disloyalty - dropped called, poor coverage, Network issues.
>
> Irrelevant.

The high churn rates at ATTWS and SprintPCS say otherwise.

>
> >New Network for the new ATTWS.
>
> SprintPCS gets better satisfaction ratings than the old ATTWS..

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <B%[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct 2004
> 13:57:53 GMT, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> >>
> >> ATTWS will be back in business in 6 months when Cingular MUST give back
> >> the ATTWS logo and brand to ATT. ATT has signed a 5 year deal with
> >> Sprint to sell cellular service using the SprintPCS Network, like Virgin
> >> does now. Same name, different Network, zero reason for loyalty.
> >
> >AT&T has already stated that they do expect a significant number of new
> >customers to come on board, from the former ATTWS. ...
>
> Really? Where and when? Link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May18.html

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
>
>I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
>perfect".

Wrong on both counts.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
>
>I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
>perfect".

Wrong on both counts.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
> >>
> >
> >I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
> >perfect".
>
> Wrong on both counts.

Cingular has not integrated PacBell, Snet, SWB, BellSouth, Houston
Cellular peices yet, not matter hopw much that fact displeases you or
you wish to pretend otherwise. It's 4 years now.

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

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Oct
> 2004 16:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You are of course free to say whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
> >>
> >
> >I'm just going by history. You're going by your usual "Cingular is
> >perfect".
>
> Wrong on both counts.

and posting this twice doesn't make you more correct.

=============

Another reason for Churn. Mishandled Rebates. My 8-12 weeks to receive a
rebate is now sitting at 16 weeks and I was told today (oh, the check
was sent 2 days ago), why do I think that's not true?

Jack Zwick wrote:


> It might be easy to do, but why would they chase away ATTWS customers by
> doing that?


Look at it this way: All ATTWS numbers have already been ported to
Cingular. They were ported this past Tuesday.

Porting a number from Cingular to Cingular isn't a particularly
meaningful activity.