NEWS: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > And if it didn't really matter how many customers a company had, then
> > Cingular wouldn't be so hot to acquire either T-Mobile's U.S.
operations, or
> > AT&T Wireless.
>
> Wouldn't established spectrum be enticing for Cingular which is not
> spectrum rich like other carriers?
>
> > There are other reasons that market share is important as well: Read:
> >
> >
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...iewId=news_vie
> > w&newsId=20031203005437&newsLang=en
>
> "Part of the customer churn issue is attributed to differences in
> customer satisfaction," said Wolff. "Almost a third of Verizon Wireless
> customers say they are completely satisfied. Only 25 percent of the
> users of other major brands say they are completely satisfied."

33% versus 25% does not track with the churn percentages. Verizon has far
less churn than any carrier other than Nextel, by a much larger margin than
the customer satisfaction differences would cause. Of course customer
satisfaction is very vague.

> I would like to see a geographical representation of such. I would be
> willing to bet that the only reason Verizon Wireless is at the top is
> because a majority of its customers are in densely populated urban areas
> that are covered very well.

Duh. All the major carriers have a customer base with a majority of
customers in urban areas. The reason Verizon is at the top for me, is
because my phone works outside the urban areas too. This is not the case
with Sprint PCS, Nextel, T-Mobile, Cingular GSM, or AT&T GSM. Furthermore,
the problem with Sprint PCS, Nextel, AT&T GSM, and Cingular GSM in my urban
area, is that the coverage isn't great even in the urban area. Cingular and
T-Mobile are g-d awful, Sprint PCS has a great many gaps, and AT&T TDMA is
deteriorating. It's not that Verizon is wonderful, and that's the
competition is so poor.

> I would be willing to bet that a majority
> of area of the VZW network covers consists of primarily of unhappy rural
> customers, where as Cingular and AT&T *could* be distributed, having a
> much larger "market share" of rural customers. Peiople can play with
> numbers.

I don't see this being the case. In my area, the rural carriers are not VZW,
Cingular, or AT&T. They are Edge Wireless, Golden State Cellular, etc. The
national carriers aren't that interested in rural areas.

> To see Verizon's latest removal of coverage from the America's Choice
> plan, click or copy and paste these links:
>
> http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
> http://www.meetmyattorney.com/cellul...es/000347.html

I'm pissed about this too. But at least I have coverage and pay for a call.
There's a lot of Northern California where this isn't an option if you're
with Cingular or T-Mobile. I.e. Edge Wireless doesn't all Cingular and
T-Mobile to roam on their GSM network; AT&T GSM can, because Edge is an AT&T
affiliate. The affiliate system is clever. It lets smaller carriers, with
higher costs, charge more to rural customers, while allowing both rural
customers and urban customers ubiquitous coverage. Sprint is really big into
affiliates, as is AT&T.

---

› See More: NEWS: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa & Missouri. WW is installing GSM 1900 &
GSM 850 to satisfy their roaming agreements with T-Mobile, Cingulae & ATTWS.
WW should have GSM across their entire footprint by 6/30/2004. Their 1x
overlay should be complete by then also.



"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Clay wrote:
> > WW currenty has just over 100 towers in 5 midwest states live with GSM
1900
> > for ROAMING purposes only. WW has zero future plans to allow their own
> > subscribers to use their GSM Network. FYI WW uses Cellular A side for
all of
> > their Cellular One markets and has 1 PCS market in Amarillo Texas
operating
> > under the Western Wireless brand name.
>
> Which 5 states?
>
> ==AD
>

"Melee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4 Dec 2003 10:32:24 -0800, [email protected] (WAW) wrote:
>
> >I think that if anything happens, it will be a Cingular/AT&T Wireless
> >deal. Here's what I see AT&T Wireless doing to make themselves
> >attractive (off the top of my head):
> >
> >-Dropping their IT Payroll down to almost zilch. Brings up the
> >profitability.
> >-Selling off all overseas stakes in other providers. Ditto.
> >-Recent focus in financials on profitability. They've moved from
> >"here's how many new people we're getting" to "here's how much we're
> >making per subscriber".
> >
> >I also found it interesting that Rogers in Canada will be dropping the
> >"AT&T" from their name, again some time in mid '04.
> >
> >Finally, I think it would be easier to work around NTT's 16% stake in
> >AWE than D. Telekom's hold on TMobile.
>
> The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
> destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
> will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.



You mean like Verizon wireline ?



x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 800 Gigs/Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD

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

> > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
> > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
> > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.


They might make them sell off in areas where they didnt have 4
competitors, but itsRepublicans running the FTC now, so any merger WILL
go through.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:09:34 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "d" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
>> > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
>> > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.
>
>
>They might make them sell off in areas where they didnt have 4
>competitors, but itsRepublicans running the FTC now, so any merger WILL
>go through.

No matter who's in the White House, the notion that the FCC would
derail consolidation in an industry with nine major players is
ridiculous.

People forget that until about 5 years ago or so, we had 2 commercial
jet makers in the U.S. -- McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. The latter
bought up the former with no antitrust difficulty, relatively
speaking. That deal meant a lot more to the overall competitive
landscape of that industry than any wireless merger would.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003
17:31:49 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

>.... We've seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area,
>where Cingular experienced very high churn, including a lot of customers
>that simply paid the early termination fees. An article in the Oakland
>Tribune stated: "According to an internal Cingular memo "Profiling the
>Killer -- Churn" cited in papers filed last month by the <California> PUC's
>consumer protection and safety division, about 19.5 percent of Cingular
>customers ended contracts within 4 to 12 months of initiating service,
>despite having to pay early termination fees."

That not "very high" level of churn isn't bad by industry standards.

--
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 Mon, 08 Dec 2003
11:00:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...iewId=news_vie
>> > w&newsId=20031203005437&newsLang=en
>>
>> "Part of the customer churn issue is attributed to differences in
>> customer satisfaction," said Wolff. "Almost a third of Verizon Wireless
>> customers say they are completely satisfied. Only 25 percent of the
>> users of other major brands say they are completely satisfied."
>
>33% versus 25% does not track with the churn percentages. Verizon has far
>less churn than any carrier other than Nextel, by a much larger margin than
>the customer satisfaction differences would cause. ...

The difference in churn is actually quite consistent with that difference in
satisfaction.

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

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Lines: 13
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:46:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.32.51.53
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1070444816 66.32.51.53 (Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:46:56 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:46:56 PST
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:42930 alt.cellular.attws:18084 alt.cellular.cingular:25572 alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream:53039 alt.cellular.nextel:11899

In article <rMczb.41369$Ac3.10365@lakeread01>,
"Bill Roland" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What an idiotic statement. You think that because a German company owns
> T-Mobile, that the government doesn't have a say-so in what they do or
> doesn't care about what they are doing? Let me answer that one for you:
> wrong.

We now have Republicans at the switch, unlike when they stopped MCI from
getting SprintPCS.

As long as most part of the country have 4 carriers, and no single
carrier has more than 40% of market, Mergers should not be an issue.

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:57:17 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.204.185.87
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1070567837 209.204.185.87 (Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:57:17 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:57:17 PST
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:42982 alt.cellular.attws:18200 alt.cellular.cingular:25648 alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream:53132 alt.cellular.nextel:11978 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:126747 alt.cellular.verizon:129570

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

In <rMczb.41369$Ac3.10365@lakeread01> on Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:28:05 -0500, "Bill
Roland" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:38:31
>> GMT, "[email protected]" <Michelle Johnson> wrote:

>> >The "feds" also broke up AT&T back in '84. They wont allow a merger
>> >between Cingular and AT&T, it would destroy T-Mobile.
>>
>> The "feds" don't care about T-Mobile -- it's not domestic.

>What an idiotic statement. You think that because a German company owns
>T-Mobile, that the government doesn't have a say-so in what they do or
>doesn't care about what they are doing? ...

Didn't say that -- read more carefully.


p.s. Please place follow-up material below (not above) quoted material, as
explained in Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
<http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
news.newusers.questions Moderation Board), unless a thread is already using
top posting. (Mixing posting styles in a given thread is confusing.)

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