Isn't It Ironic -- Don't Ya Think? Cingular *may infact* become "ATTWS" again!

<http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html>
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html>

[...]

| Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the
| AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T
| Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October
| 2004.

[...]

<http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/03/05/ap2571298.html>
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684785/from/RS.1/>
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/05/business/main1369428.shtml>
<http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1690092>
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/at_t_bellsouth;_ylt=Atrc9yerk87JAODhB4aSmpys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-->

[...]

| After spending millions of dollars to rebrand AT&T Wireless Services
| Inc. stores as Cingular stores and hundreds of millions of dollars
| more on marketing the new Cingular after its $41 billion acquisition
| of AT&T Wireless in October 2004, Cingular will now become AT&T if the
| merger with BellSouth is completed.

[...]

<http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=amq.m_hOsBBM&refer=home>

[...]

| AT&T will lower costs by dropping the Cingular brand and selling all
| its services under the AT&T name as it gains 100 percent ownership of
| the biggest U.S. mobile-phone company.

[...]

| With BellSouth, AT&T would also have more customers to target for its
| Web access offering as well as planned television services over faster
| fiber-optic lines.

(I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over
POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of
their ass, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!)

[...]

<http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-03-06T003752Z_01_N05197609_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-BELLSOUTH-ATT-DC.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13>

[...]

| At the completion of the deal, which is expected to close within a
| year, all the landline and wireless businesses will exist under the
| sole brand name of AT&T, the companies said.

[...]

<http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-03-05-att-bellsouth_x.htm>

[...]

| Roger Entner, a wireless analyst with Ovum, says, however, that would
| be a mistake. "AT&T in wireless is such a wounded name. It gives
| everybody the creeps who experienced the AT&T Wireless experience."

[...]

---

› See More: Isn't It Ironic -- Don't Ya Think? Cingular *may infact* become "ATTWS" again!

> | Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the
> | AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T
> | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October
> | 2004.

I was perfectly happy with ATT cell service and not eager to be assimilated
into the Cingular brand. They gave me no choice if I wanted an updated
phone, so I gave in and accepted that stupid Cingular logo on my phone
instead of the relatively classy ATT symbol. I have never been impressed
with Cingulars service or business practices. I'd prefer it if the old ATT
was my cell phone provider, but I have the feeling all we'd get back is the
name leaving the crappy Cingular infrastructure in place.

What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer who
after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the families
phones to new high end motorolas. # months later (March 05) get a letter to
come in and pick out a new phone as Cingular is taking over and the ones we
just purchased (at a cost of over $500) would not be compatible with the new
network. The list of phones to choose from had little of quality or
comparison to the new phones, but with litle choice we picked out 3 new
replacements all to have just a year later the possibility everything is
going back to ATT Wireless any way!


"Anon E. Moose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html>
>
> [...]
>
> | Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the
> | AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T
> | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October
> | 2004.
>
> [...]
>
> <http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/03/05/ap2571298.html>
> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684785/from/RS.1/>
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/05/business/main1369428.shtml>
> <http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1690092>
> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/at_t_bellsouth;_ylt=Atrc9yerk87JAODhB4aSmpys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-->
>
> [...]
>
> | After spending millions of dollars to rebrand AT&T Wireless Services
> | Inc. stores as Cingular stores and hundreds of millions of dollars
> | more on marketing the new Cingular after its $41 billion acquisition
> | of AT&T Wireless in October 2004, Cingular will now become AT&T if the
> | merger with BellSouth is completed.
>
> [...]
>
> <http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=amq.m_hOsBBM&refer=home>
>
> [...]
>
> | AT&T will lower costs by dropping the Cingular brand and selling all
> | its services under the AT&T name as it gains 100 percent ownership of
> | the biggest U.S. mobile-phone company.
>
> [...]
>
> | With BellSouth, AT&T would also have more customers to target for its
> | Web access offering as well as planned television services over faster
> | fiber-optic lines.
>
> (I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over
> POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of
> their ass, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!)
>
> [...]
>
> <http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-03-06T003752Z_01_N05197609_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-BELLSOUTH-ATT-DC.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13>
>
> [...]
>
> | At the completion of the deal, which is expected to close within a
> | year, all the landline and wireless businesses will exist under the
> | sole brand name of AT&T, the companies said.
>
> [...]
>
> <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-03-05-att-bellsouth_x.htm>
>
> [...]
>
> | Roger Entner, a wireless analyst with Ovum, says, however, that would
> | be a mistake. "AT&T in wireless is such a wounded name. It gives
> | everybody the creeps who experienced the AT&T Wireless experience."
>
> [...]
>

Only in name though. When Cingular bought ATTWS there were technical
differences that required the changeout. All Cingular will do this time
is change the name to at&t to reflect the name of it's parent, SBC who
bought at&t and the name.


> What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer
> who after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the
> families phones to new high end motorolas. # months later (March 05)
> get a letter to come in and pick out a new phone as Cingular is
> taking over and the ones we just purchased (at a cost of over $500)
> would not be compatible with the new network. The list of phones to
> choose from had little of quality or comparison to the new phones,
> but with litle choice we picked out 3 new replacements all to have
> just a year later the possibility everything is going back to ATT
> Wireless any way!
>
> "Anon E. Moose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html>
>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of
>>> the AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers:
>>> AT&T Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in
>>> October 2004.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> <http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/03/05/ap2571298.html>
>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684785/from/RS.1/>
>> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/05/business/main1369428.shtml>
>> <http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1690092>
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/at_t_bellsouth;_ylt=Atrc9yerk87JAODhB4aSmpys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-->
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> After spending millions of dollars to rebrand AT&T Wireless Services
>>> Inc. stores as Cingular stores and hundreds of millions of dollars
>>> more on marketing the new Cingular after its $41 billion acquisition
>>> of AT&T Wireless in October 2004, Cingular will now become AT&T if
>>> the merger with BellSouth is completed.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> <http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=amq.m_hOsBBM&refer=home>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> AT&T will lower costs by dropping the Cingular brand and selling all
>>> its services under the AT&T name as it gains 100 percent ownership
>>> of the biggest U.S. mobile-phone company.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> With BellSouth, AT&T would also have more customers to target for
>>> its Web access offering as well as planned television services over
>>> faster fiber-optic lines.
>>
>> (I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over
>> POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out
>> of their ass, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> <http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-03-06T003752Z_01_N05197609_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-BELLSOUTH-ATT-DC.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> At the completion of the deal, which is expected to close within a
>>> year, all the landline and wireless businesses will exist under the
>>> sole brand name of AT&T, the companies said.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-03-05-att-bellsouth_x.htm>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Roger Entner, a wireless analyst with Ovum, says, however, that
>>> would be a mistake. "AT&T in wireless is such a wounded name. It
>>> gives everybody the creeps who experienced the AT&T Wireless
>>> experience."
>>
>> [...]

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:29:09
-0800, Anon E. Moose <[email protected]> wrote:

>| With BellSouth, AT&T would also have more customers to target for its
>| Web access offering as well as planned television services over faster
>| fiber-optic lines.
>
>(I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over
>POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of
>their ass, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!)

Lightspeed uses fiber-served remote terminals.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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

In <7uNOf.122079$4l5.89855@dukeread05> on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:51:58 -0500, "PC
Medic" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer who
>after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the families
>phones to new high end motorolas. # months later (March 05) get a letter to
>come in and pick out a new phone as Cingular is taking over and the ones we
>just purchased (at a cost of over $500) would not be compatible with the new
>network. The list of phones to choose from had little of quality or
>comparison to the new phones, ...

High end Motorola and other phones were in the list.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:22:24 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>(I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over
>>POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of
>>their ass, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!)
>
>Lightspeed uses fiber-served remote terminals.

Unimportant and uninteresting, which is why I wrote "FTTP like
Verizon's FiOS!".

Sure, PL uses FO to the RTs, but all that does is allow POADSL to
customers that couldn't perhaps get it before. It doesn't allow for
the virtually unlimited bandwidth that FiOS does.

Verizon has "methods to their madness" and so does AT&T/Cingular.

The parallels in the Cellular world are uncanny.

Verizon is known for having the overall best Nationwide coverage
(CMDA+AMPS), the technically superior cellular technology (CMDA),
looking to the future, and they are not ashamed to charge a premium
for it.

AT&T/Cingular is more about spending the least amount of money to get
by for today and they'll worry about next year in 6 months.

Project Lightspeed = mediocre service to a large majority of people in
a relatively quick timetable at a lower initial (but larger longterm)
cost.
FiOS = awesome service to a smaller group at a relatively slowertime
table at a relatively larger initial cost.

Anon E. Moose wrote:
> <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html>
>
> [...]
>
> | Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the
> | AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T
> | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October
> | 2004.

Makes sense. The Cingular brand is weak, while the AT&T Wireless brand
was much stronger.

Less confusion with the asthma medication as well.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:20:59
-0800, Anon E. Moose <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:22:24 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>(I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over
>>>POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of
>>>their ass, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!)
>>
>>Lightspeed uses fiber-served remote terminals.
>
>Unimportant and uninteresting,

I disagree.

>which is why I wrote "FTTP like
>Verizon's FiOS!".
>
>Sure, PL uses FO to the RTs, but all that does is allow POADSL to
>customers that couldn't perhaps get it before. It doesn't allow for
>the virtually unlimited bandwidth that FiOS does.

It can actually provide tremendous bandwidth if the RT is upgraded to VDSL,
which is nearly 10 times the speed of ADSL.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:47:22
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anon E. Moose wrote:
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html>
>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> | Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the
>> | AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T
>> | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October
>> | 2004.
>
>Makes sense. The Cingular brand is weak, while the AT&T Wireless brand
>was much stronger.

Many industry observers would disagree. Thanks to its dismal record in
cellular, considerable rebuilding of the brand will be needed.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <7uNOf.122079$4l5.89855@dukeread05> on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:51:58 -0500,
> "PC
> Medic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer who
>>after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the families
>>phones to new high end motorolas. # months later (March 05) get a letter
>>to
>>come in and pick out a new phone as Cingular is taking over and the ones
>>we
>>just purchased (at a cost of over $500) would not be compatible with the
>>new
>>network. The list of phones to choose from had little of quality or
>>comparison to the new phones, ...
>
> High end Motorola and other phones were in the list.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>


Perhaps in your area, but not here in Va. Beach.
Not the 'free' ones any way.

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

In <Il7Pf.122292$4l5.40914@dukeread05> on Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:45:45 -0500, "PC
Medic" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>> In <7uNOf.122079$4l5.89855@dukeread05> on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:51:58 -0500,
>> "PC
>> Medic" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer who
>>>after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the families
>>>phones to new high end motorolas. # months later (March 05) get a letter
>>>to
>>>come in and pick out a new phone as Cingular is taking over and the ones
>>>we
>>>just purchased (at a cost of over $500) would not be compatible with the
>>>new
>>>network. The list of phones to choose from had little of quality or
>>>comparison to the new phones, ...
>>
>> High end Motorola and other phones were in the list.

>Perhaps in your area, but not here in Va. Beach.
>Not the 'free' ones any way.

The current lineup for Virginia Beach looks pretty similar to my area,
including:

* Motorola V557 for $50
* Motorola ROKR E1 (Refurb) for $50
* Motorola RAZR V3 Silver/Black for $100
* Motorola MPx220 (Refurb) for $150
* Motorola SLVR L7 for $200
* Motorola RAZR V3 Pink for $200

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my plan. But Cingular has had no *carrot* to offer older ATT customers to switch from TDMA to GSM.
Even with the Cingular name going away, ATT will still continue to decomission the TDMA system for an eventual all-GSM system.
I'm just hoping that ATT will come up with at least one *minimal use* GSM family (two phones) plan for less than $39.99/mo. My current TDMA-based plan w/ two phones is approx $30-$35/mo., depending on useage.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 7 Mar 2006 02:32:34
-0600, esvanr <[email protected]> wrote:

>I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with
>Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my
>plan. But Cingular has had no *carrot* to offer older ATT customers to
>switch from TDMA to GSM.

It's the same "carrot" Cingular offers to new subscribers. Why should it be a
better deal?

>Even with the Cingular name going away, ATT will still continue to
>decomission the TDMA system for an eventual all-GSM system.

True. GSM is far more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA").

>I'm just hoping that ATT will come up with at least one *minimal use*
>GSM family (two phones) plan for less than $39.99/mo.

I think that unlikely. It's not profitable business for the carrier.

>My current
>TDMA-based plan w/ two phones is approx $30-$35/mo., depending on
>useage.

That's part of why ATTWS was forced to sell out to Cingular.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"esvanr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with
> Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my
> plan. But Cingular has had no *carrot* to offer older ATT customers to
> switch from TDMA to GSM.
> Even with the Cingular name going away, ATT will still continue to
> decomission the TDMA system for an eventual all-GSM system.
> I'm just hoping that ATT will come up with at least one *minimal use*
> GSM family (two phones) plan for less than $39.99/mo. My current
> TDMA-based plan w/ two phones is approx $30-$35/mo., depending on
> useage.
>

ATTWS had a $19.95 plan and their Digital One Rate, at $29.99, was extremely
popular. Lots of us signed on, and were promised that we could continue
with our plans even after the merger.

Had Cingular offered to let us migrate to GSM with no change in our rates,
there would have been little opposition. What disturbed many of us was the
way that Cingular used the planned decommissioning of TDMA as a reason to
abrogate its promise to honor all existing ATTWS plans. Yes, I know that
GSM is not the same as TDMA, but what did we ATTWS customers care about the
transmission protocol. We were not the ones that asked for this change--and
I seriously doubt that there was any cost differential to Cingular
regardless of which transmission system we were using.

They just used this as a reason to twist our arms, and the #1 FCC complaint
regarding Cingular is their push to impose unwanted higher rates upon
existing customers, according to published reports.

As it turned out, Sprint offered me:

Three FREE phones, with FREE overnight shipping
NO activation charges
7 PM N/W, just like I had on ATTWS
FREE M2M, just like on ATTWS
Free long distance, just like on ATTWS
and my bill is about $5.00 LESS than ATTWS/Cingular was charging me!

So I ended up getting essentially the same deal as ATTWS gave me, priced a
few bucks less, with call quality that exceeded that of TDMA, and I didn't
have to grovel at Cingular's feet to get it! Let Cingular advertise all
they want--there are lots of us former ATTWS customers that'll never go back
to them.

SBC/Cingular can rename themselves "AT&T," but if they continue bullying
their customers they will end up just like the former AT&T did--on the scrap
heap. It's been 22 years since divestiture--and AT&T is no longer perceived
as "Ma Bell." In fact, a significant percentage of adults living today do
not even remember the Bell System.