AT&T Will Stay AT&T??

An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.

"AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
Wireless in October."

How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
wireless was going away after the first of the year.

Dick

---

› See More: AT&T Will Stay AT&T??

That's not ATT Wireless Service, that's the Land Long Distance ATT, they
were 2 separate companies. This will be the same thing as Qwest selling
their own wireless and running it on Sprint PCS' network. There will be no
effect on Cingular customers.

Chris
Happy New Year

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
>
> "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
> in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
> AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
> Wireless in October."
>
> How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
> wireless was going away after the first of the year.
>
> Dick

Thanks for the clarification.

Dick

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:42:39 GMT, "Chris Russell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That's not ATT Wireless Service, that's the Land Long Distance ATT, they
>were 2 separate companies. This will be the same thing as Qwest selling
>their own wireless and running it on Sprint PCS' network. There will be no
>effect on Cingular customers.
>
>Chris
>Happy New Year
>
>"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
>>
>> "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
>> in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
>> AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
>> Wireless in October."
>>
>> How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
>> wireless was going away after the first of the year.
>>
>> Dick
>

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:
>
> > An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
> >
> > "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
> > in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
> > AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
> > Wireless in October."
> >
> > How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
> > wireless was going away after the first of the year.
>
> Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless, and it will be going away.
>
> Cingular issued a press release saying all AT&T Wireless stores were
> being rebadged

Rebadged?

>and becoming Cingular stores on November 15. Six weeks
> later it hasn't happened in Texas yet.

Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are CIngular
stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular store.

>>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
CIngular
stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
store.<<

Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
"AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.

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

> >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
> CIngular
> stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
> store.<<


Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
This was as of Dec 31, 2004

>
> Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
> from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
> "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
> Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "notnamed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
> > CIngular
> > stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
> > store.<<
>
>
> Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
> and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
> and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
> This was as of Dec 31, 2004
>
> >
> > Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
> > from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
> > "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
> > Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.

Wow- you will avoid me at all costs- I was the one who posted thatclip. It
must suck to have someone point out the flaws in your trollish logic. And
it must suck even more not to have the skills to confront those that shoot
you down.

As I said, they are all Cingular stores now. The fact that they wonm't deal
with you is not surprising- they probably now see the notes from both of
your accounts (including the old ATTW account) and realize that you're not
worth the time.

Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "notnamed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
>> CIngular
>> stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
>> store.<<
>
>
> Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
> and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
> and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
> This was as of Dec 31, 2004
>
>>
>> Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
>> from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
>> "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
>> Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 30 Dec
2004 13:48:08 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless,

True.

>and it will be going away.

No, the brand reverts to AT&T, and Cingular will re-brand all existing ATTWS
customers as Cingular.

>Cingular issued a press release saying all AT&T Wireless stores were
>being rebadged and becoming Cingular stores on November 15.

False.

>Six weeks
>later it hasn't happened in Texas yet.

True.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on 31 Dec 2004
06:32:21 -0800, "notnamed" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
>CIngular
>stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
>store.<<
>
>Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
>from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
>"AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
>Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.

That won't happen for at least 4 months (and probably longer), so Scott is
correct.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 31 Dec
2004 17:23:56 GMT, "JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why is this such a hugh issue with you?

Because he wants to whine, and this is one of the few "issues" he can come up
with.

>Who cares if they've change the
>signs or not.

He's probably the only one.

>What difference will that make to anyone except you?

None.

>I'd
>rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
>their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.

Yep.

>"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "notnamed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
>>> CIngular
>>> stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
>>> store.<<
>>
>>
>> Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
>> and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
>> and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
>> This was as of Dec 31, 2004
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
>>> from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
>>> "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
>>> Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.
>

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

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

> Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
> signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
> rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
> their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.

If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
> > signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
> > rather they worry about something that actually matters like building
out
> > their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.
>
> If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
> rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
> providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

They'll probably use the technicians and engineers they have on the payroll,
which probably far outweight the number of carpenters and sign makers. Of
course, the way you are carrying on, I suppose this fact would be news to
you. After all, they are in the business of providing cellular service, not
hanging signs. You are apparently in the business of whining like a spoiled
child who is clueless about the ways of the world.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
>rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
>providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

You are just being silly.

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

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

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
> >rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
> >providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.
>
> You are just being silly.

Sorry you wont face the facts. Are you really Navas?