"Sprint Sells Service To AT&T Mobile"

Basically, AT&T sold all its obsolete technology to Cingular after it
realized that CDMA was the way to go. Sprint has all CDMA with extra
capacity that they can sell.

Evad



"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <http://www.mobiledia.com/news/23308.html>
>
> Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:11 pm
>
> AT&T is planning to announce deals to offer mobile phone service
> using Sprint's cell service. With an abundance of spectrum space,
> Sprint had mentioned earlier this year that it would work with AT&T
> to offer service to BUSINESS consumers. [emphasis added]
>
> Starting in the first half of 2005, AT&T will begin marketing
> Sprint's service after it wins back rights to its name, owned by
> Cingular after the merger.
>
> [MORE]
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: "Sprint Sells Service To AT&T Mobile"

Evad wrote:
> Basically, AT&T sold all its obsolete technology to Cingular after it
> realized that CDMA was the way to go. Sprint has all CDMA with extra
> capacity that they can sell.

While I appreciate your fanaticism towards CDMA (I too am a fan of it),
I must respond with "uhhh, no."

AT&T's decisions had little to do with favoring one technology over
another, and a lot more to do with the rather stupid busines and
economic decisions it made in the past that has put it in the mess it is
in now.

AT&T spun off its Cable and Wireless divisions in 2001 because it felt
it had grown too large, too fast, and planned on focusing on its core
business: local and long distance telephone service (which we all now
know, was probably the WRONG thing to do). The spun-off companies were
permitted to use the AT&T trademark, but were otherwise completely
seperate entities. Since 2001, AT&T proper has not had much of anything
to do with ANY wireless technology (except maybe for long-haul
communications), and even less to do with cable television.

Of course, the agreements to use those trademarks terminated when the
spinoffs were bought out. Comcast purchased AT&T Broadband, keeping the
Comcast name and shedding the AT&T trademark. Likewise, AT&T wireless
was purchased by Cingular, which is keeping the Cingular brand.

Now, AT&T has use of its trademark for such products again. It could
launch a cable company and call it AT&T broadband again, or it could
launch a wireless company.

The problem is, it can't. Because of the decisions it made in 2001
(which I thought was stupid even back then), AT&T has no "last mile" in
the form of coax for cable, and no wireless spectrum that it can use to
reach consumers with either. Its lobbying efforts to offer local
telephone service again have failed, making the prospect not profitable.
And the only carrier with any excess spectrum that it is willing to
resell to partners as MVNOs is Sprint. And no, this isn't necessarily
because Sprint is a CDMA carrier (if that were true, Verizon would be on
the MVNO bandwagon too).

And so, AT&T has two last, best hopes to stay in business: Voice-Over-IP
phone service (which is horribly overpriced, I must say), and reselling
wireless service just as Worldcom did before it went bankrupt. In
either case, it must depend on and piggyback off other carriers to reach
consumers.






--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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

> Basically, AT&T sold all its obsolete technology to Cingular after it
> realized that CDMA was the way to go. Sprint has all CDMA with extra
> capacity that they can sell.
>
> Evad

Not quite. AT&T spun off AT&T Wireless at the top of the tech bubble,
and the folks in charge of it ran it into the ground, forcing it to put
itself up for sale.

With Cingular's right to use the AT&T name expiring end of April, AT&T
merely desired to get back in the cellular business, and settled for the
swiss cheese coverage of Sprint.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:00:14 -0700, "Evad"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Basically, AT&T sold all its obsolete technology to Cingular after it
>realized that CDMA was the way to go. ...

That's a fantasy good only for chuckles.

--
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 Tue, 18 Jan
2005 21:51:00 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, "Evad" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> Basically, AT&T sold all its obsolete technology to Cingular after it
>> realized that CDMA was the way to go. Sprint has all CDMA with extra
>> capacity that they can sell.
>>
>> Evad
>
>Not quite. AT&T spun off AT&T Wireless at the top of the tech bubble,
>and the folks in charge of it ran it into the ground, forcing it to put
>itself up for sale.
>
>With Cingular's right to use the AT&T name expiring end of April, AT&T
>merely desired to get back in the cellular business, and settled for the
>swiss cheese coverage of Sprint.

AT&T isn't interested in getting back into the cellular business, only in
having cellular as part of its business package offerings.

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

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

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

> AT&T isn't interested in getting back into the cellular business, only in
> having cellular as part of its business package offerings.

Duh. Same thing.

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>AT&T isn't interested in getting back into the cellular business, only in
>>having cellular as part of its business package offerings.
>
> Duh. Same thing.

Except that this time they don't intend to own or operate any
infrastructure. Just resell SprintPCS under their label as part of their
integrated packages.

CharlesH wrote:

> Except that this time they don't intend to own or operate any
> infrastructure. Just resell SprintPCS under their label as part of their
> integrated packages.

As I understand it, Sprint PCS is already selling business accounts through AT&T...

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:05:56 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> AT&T isn't interested in getting back into the cellular business, only in
> >> having cellular as part of its business package offerings.
> >
> >Duh. Same thing.
>
> It's absolutely nowhere near the same thing from a business
> perspective. Making the services available through a partnership is a
> cost-effective investment that's MUCH cheaper than maintaining your
> own infrastructure on a nationwide basis and competing for a smaller
> pool of new subscribers.
>
> You don't see the VoIP providers going out and building their own LD
> networks for the same reason. The end customer could care less whose
> network carries their traffic as long as its reliable and serves the
> areas they need.

But if you don't control it end to end, then if there's a problem,
you're not setting the priorities in getting it fixed; a big
disadvantage, and vertically integrated folks do tout that fact in their
sales pitch; as AT&T used to do.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan
2005 01:05:56 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> AT&T isn't interested in getting back into the cellular business, only in
>> having cellular as part of its business package offerings.
>
>Duh. Same thing.

Are you really so clueless that you can't see a difference between retail
consumer cellular storefronts and selling communications packages to
businesses?!

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

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:47:35 -0800, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>CharlesH wrote:
>
>> Except that this time they don't intend to own or operate any
>> infrastructure. Just resell SprintPCS under their label as part of their
>> integrated packages.
>
>As I understand it, Sprint PCS is already selling business accounts through AT&T...

Correct. This is "much ado about nothing."

--
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 Wed, 19 Jan
2005 17:32:31 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It's absolutely nowhere near the same thing from a business
>> perspective. Making the services available through a partnership is a
>> cost-effective investment that's MUCH cheaper than maintaining your
>> own infrastructure on a nationwide basis and competing for a smaller
>> pool of new subscribers.
>>
>> You don't see the VoIP providers going out and building their own LD
>> networks for the same reason. The end customer could care less whose
>> network carries their traffic as long as its reliable and serves the
>> areas they need.
>
>But if you don't control it end to end, then if there's a problem,
>you're not setting the priorities in getting it fixed; a big
>disadvantage, ...

Nonsense. It all depends on the relationship between the two companies.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

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

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

Jack Zwick wrote:

> But if you don't control it end to end, then if there's a problem,
> you're not setting the priorities in getting it fixed; a big
> disadvantage, and vertically integrated folks do tout that fact in their
> sales pitch; as AT&T used to do.

Maybe.

There is some merit to your statement.

However, let's look at the landline situation in Cleveland.

AT&T and MCI now provide local dialtone for residential customers, but for a
long time, the only company besides SBC that did it was CoreComm.

Now, you live in Houston, so I imagine SBC (former Southwestern Bell) is your
LEC. SBC is also the primary LEC in most of Ohio through its acquisition of
AmeriBlech (sorry... Ameritech). I have had billing and technical problems they
refused to resolve without me filing a complaint with the Ohio PUC.

On the other hand, Corecomm has thousands of lines, and they resell SBC.
Therefore - if there is a problem - CoreComm can go to SBC and say "We're your
largest customer. Fix your problem, now." It's a wonderful tool to actually get
SBC to act.

Similarly, AT&T will have enough leverage with Sprint that if they have a
problem with Sprint not fixing things, they can wave contracts and lawyers
around and get the problem fixed.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:32:31 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:05:56 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> AT&T isn't interested in getting back into the cellular business, only
> >> >> in
> >> >> having cellular as part of its business package offerings.
> >> >
> >> >Duh. Same thing.
> >>
> >> It's absolutely nowhere near the same thing from a business
> >> perspective. Making the services available through a partnership is a
> >> cost-effective investment that's MUCH cheaper than maintaining your
> >> own infrastructure on a nationwide basis and competing for a smaller
> >> pool of new subscribers.
> >>
> >> You don't see the VoIP providers going out and building their own LD
> >> networks for the same reason. The end customer could care less whose
> >> network carries their traffic as long as its reliable and serves the
> >> areas they need.
> >
> >But if you don't control it end to end, then if there's a problem,
> >you're not setting the priorities in getting it fixed; a big
> >disadvantage, and vertically integrated folks do tout that fact in their
> >sales pitch; as AT&T used to do.
>
> That's not true at all in most cases. Think of it this way: when you
> own a business, who gets top-level service? The people who are helping
> you make sure your bread gets buttered continually. IOW, it's your
> repeat/contractual customers that you often have the greatest
> financial incentive to serve. Whether or not you "own" the
> relationship isn't as critical as you make it out to be.

Selling plumbing pipe is not the same as selling Network connectivity.

>
> Anyone who's been in business for themselves or coaches entrepreneurs
> will tell you the fastest way to grow your business is organically.
> IOW, service the heck out of the customers you have and work to grow
> existing relationships. That doesn't involve expensive marketing
> campagins, etc.

No, but being vertically integrated is wonderful, then you're selling to
yourself.

In article <[email protected]>,
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:20:56 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >But if you don't control it end to end, then if there's a problem,
> >> >you're not setting the priorities in getting it fixed; a big
> >> >disadvantage, and vertically integrated folks do tout that fact in their
> >> >sales pitch; as AT&T used to do.
> >>
> >> That's not true at all in most cases. Think of it this way: when you
> >> own a business, who gets top-level service? The people who are helping
> >> you make sure your bread gets buttered continually. IOW, it's your
> >> repeat/contractual customers that you often have the greatest
> >> financial incentive to serve. Whether or not you "own" the
> >> relationship isn't as critical as you make it out to be.
> >
> >Selling plumbing pipe is not the same as selling Network connectivity.
>
> No one would ever pretend the two products are remotely similar;
> however, from a sales and business management standpoint, your
> statement is absolutely, patently false. Any business, and I mean ANY
> business will tell you acquiring a new customer is one hell of a lot
> more expensive than giving occasional incentives or otherwise doing a
> good job of serving existing customers.
>
> If you think otherwise, it's absolutely clear you have never owned or
> run a business.
> >
> >>
> >> Anyone who's been in business for themselves or coaches entrepreneurs
> >> will tell you the fastest way to grow your business is organically.
> >> IOW, service the heck out of the customers you have and work to grow
> >> existing relationships. That doesn't involve expensive marketing
> >> campagins, etc.
> >
> >No, but being vertically integrated is wonderful, then you're selling to
> >yourself.
>
> What the heck does that mean?

You should have taken Economics 101 in college so you'd understand the
benefits of vertical integration.