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

Like Sprint PCS is in misery? Like Sprint will sell off Sprint
PCS any more than verizon would sell off verizon wireless? LOL

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> "Bill Roland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6pCvb.3241$Ac3.784@lakeread01...
>
>>I just can't see the Fed's allowing an AT&T Wireless/Cingular
>>merger/aquisition.
>
>
> The feds will do whatever big business wants, as long as there are still at
> least two competitors.
>
> If Cingular acquired AT&T it would clear the way for Verizon to put Sprint
> out of its misery,
> if it chose to. AT&T and Sprint are predicted to be the biggest losers from
> number portability.
>
>

---

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 22 Nov 2003
16:02:06 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

>... AT&T and Sprint are predicted to be the biggest losers from
>number portability.

Funny how you change your tune:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Subject: Re: NEWS: Get Ready for a Wireless Carrier War
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 06:12:17 GMT

Actually, all the predictions are that Verizon and T-Moble will be
the big winners. I.e. see:

"http://taipeitimes.com/News/bizfocus/archives/2003/08/31/2003066000"

Winners: Verizon and T-Mobile
Losers: Cingular, AT&T Wireless, Sprint PCS, Nextel

This is just one of many similar predictions.

....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
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 Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:38:31
GMT, "[email protected]" <Michelle Johnson> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:02:06 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Roland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:6pCvb.3241$Ac3.784@lakeread01...
>>> I just can't see the Fed's allowing an AT&T Wireless/Cingular
>>> merger/aquisition.
>>
>>The feds will do whatever big business wants, as long as there are still at
>>least two competitors.
>>
>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.

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

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.


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 23 Nov 2003
23:38:31
> GMT, "[email protected]" <Michelle Johnson> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:02:06 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"Bill Roland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:6pCvb.3241$Ac3.784@lakeread01...
> >>> I just can't see the Fed's allowing an AT&T Wireless/Cingular
> >>> merger/aquisition.
> >>
> >>The feds will do whatever big business wants, as long as there are still
at
> >>least two competitors.
> >>
> >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.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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.

"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Is it TMOBILE? Is it ATTWS? This is gonna be FUN!!
>
> Cingular Wireless has gotten approval from its parent companies SBC
> Communications and BellSouth to acquire another leading U.S. carrier. The
> news means Cingular could acquire one of its rivals by as early as next
> year. It has also sparked the latest round of "guess which carriers will
> merge". Insiders are betting that Cingular will make a bid for either AT&T
> Wireless or T-Mobile. T-Mobile's parent, Deutsche Telekom, has denied recent
> merger rumors, saying it is dedicated to its U.S. operation. Most insiders
> are currently betting on a Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger. Such a move would
> create a North American GSM carrier with more than 40 million subscribers.
>
> SOURCE : Businessweek Online (Subscription
> Required)http://lists.fiercemarkets.com/c.htm...d3r5,gvx7,5kmr
> ,bqzq
>
> Visit Wireless World at http://wirelessway.blogspot.com for the latest in
> Wireless Technology News and Info! Free Drawing for Aluminum Palm /Clie
> case!!

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:57:45 GMT, Melee <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Not really. The government doesn't use technology to determine a
monopoly. The fact is there are seven nationwide cellular carriers.
The technology they use is irrelevant and with seven there's no way a
consolidation of two would be considered a monopoly.

If the government allowed Comcast to swallow up AT&T Broadband,
there's no way in hell they'd stop amerger of Cingular and AT&T
Wireless. Cable modem users rarely have a choice in terms of
ISPs/cable providers. Contrast that to cell service which has the most
options of any consumer telecommunications service around.

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.

TMobile has some of the best backing in the industry. Even if it did
go away, there would still be Verizon, Nextel and Sprint (though maybe
not for long). I think as long as Verizon and Nextel would still be
around, 3-way competition would be enough to approve a merger.
>
> 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.

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

A monopoly would apply to an industry, not the use of a particular
technology within an industry. Thus, there would still be Verizon, Nextel
and AT&T (ignoring the lack of Sprint here). That would not be a monopoly.

Tom Veldhouse

Western is a CDMA carrier for their own customers. They support TDMA and now
GSM for roaming. They are adding GSM to their towers using 1900 mhz spectrum
acquired from T-Mobile (formerly voicestream who was at one time a
subsidiary of Western).




"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[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.
>
> Yes, however, if there was a Cingular/AT&T WS deal, I think that the
> newly formed wirless carrier would probably ally T-Mobile more than
> crush it (at least for now). Cingular/T-Mobile have some attractive
> deals going on with each other, and I think the new company and T-Mobile
> would "swap" coverage areas, meaning that T-Mobile would be responsible
> for building out into more rural areas in some instances, and Cingular
> would be responsible to build out in other areas, thus helping spread
> the GSM coverage.
>
> I also think that Cingular is very interested in Western Wireless.
> Western Wireless, being primarily a rural wireless service provider, is
> not very profitable, if at all (depending upong the time). I have heard
> rumours that Western Wireless is going to sell out to Cingular, and
> suddenly right after those rumours, Western Wireless announced it is
> going to build an 850/1900 GSM/GPRS network (interesting, isn't it?).
> the acquisition of Western Wireless, which almost all of the markets it
> operates in do not overlap with Cingular markets, would hardly be a
> problem with 850 A/B spectrum cap. It would also give Cingular a huge
> advantage to have a much larger native network.
>
> Not only that, but AT&T and Cingular are Western's largest roaming
> partners, and AT&T alone controls almost 20% of Western's revenue from
> roaming from its own customers. If a Cingular/AT&T deal were to arise,
> Western Wireless would be at the mercy of the new carrier not only for
> revenue, but also for allowing its customers to roam. Of course,
> there's also the idea of a hostile takeover, too.
>
> If Cingular/AT&T/Western Wireless could all unite, I think we would see
> (after the bugs worked out) a massively large, stable, native network
> coverage area.
>
> ==AD
>

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.


"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Clay wrote:
> > Western is a CDMA carrier for their own customers. They support TDMA and
now
> > GSM for roaming. They are adding GSM to their towers using 1900 mhz
spectrum
> > acquired from T-Mobile (formerly voicestream who was at one time a
> > subsidiary of Western).
>
>
> Do you have any idea where these GSM 1900 areas are? So far, I only
> know of GSM 850. If I was told correctly by a Cellular One
> representative, WW is mostly cellular A and B across the board.
>
> ==AD
>

"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I don't think we'll really be able to see if these predictions are true
> > until we look at market share a year from now. As we've seen in the
> > newsgroups, many people who were planning to change carriers right away
> > found out that their carrier extended their contract without permission.
We
> > could make guesses on market share for the 3Q2004 and see who's the
closest!
>
> Market share only means one thing in the viability of a wireless
> carrier: the number of cutomers.

Not true. Market share has a lot more impact than you realize. For national
carries there is a critical mass to have an operating profit, and unless
there are extenuating circumstances, the larger the market share, the larger
the operating profit. You amortize all your fixed costs and your marketing
costs over a much larger number of customers. Extenuating circumstances
include an abnormally high level of capital expenditures, such as what
occurred with AT&T and Cingular in their transition from TDMA to GSM. What's
especially interesting is that the most profitable carriers are not
necessarily the ones with the highest ARPU.

> It doesn't really matter how many customers a company has, the only
> thing that matters is that the company is not losing money all the time.
> I'm pretty sure that a carrier with $15 million customers, but loses
> $10 billion dollars per year will not last as long as a small regional
> carrier with maybe 100,000 customers, but makes $1 million per year.

This is not a good comparison. The small company likely has no competition
and is making big bucks from both roaming charges and from not having to
compete with lower rate national carriers. There are always profitable
niches that a national carrier can't fill because they'd have to charge the
same lower rates in a rural area that they charge in an urban area, but the
rural area requires proportionally a lot more infrastructure (especially for
digital, not so much for AMPS).

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.

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

"According to Wolff, the only other variable that is directly related to
interest in switching is brand size. Among customers of the leading brands,
interest in switching declines as market share increases. This could be a
market factor moving the category toward consolidation."

As to the winners and losers so far:

http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?n...ews&bt=verizon

Winners: Verizon, Nextel
Losers: AT&T, Cingular
Neutral: Sprint, T-Mobile

> Albeit, you cannot fully analyze the impact that WNLP until it has been
> implemented in the entire country. A majority of the U.S. (at least by
> area) does not enjoy the luxury of WLNP. I know of many rural areas
> where Verizon will lose most of its customers to AT&T in a certain market.

Highly unlikely. If Verizon is that bad, and AT&T so good, in those areas
then the majority of those customers will already have left Verizon despite
having to change numbers. 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."

But just for the record, what are those "many rural areas?"

> 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."

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. 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.

> "According to Wolff, the only other variable that is directly related to
> interest in switching is brand size. Among customers of the leading brands,
> interest in switching declines as market share increases. This could be a
> market factor moving the category toward consolidation."
>
> As to the winners and losers so far:
>
> http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?n...ews&bt=verizon

"touted as net winners". There are no official figures of churn rates
there. It does not say how many customers any company gained nor lost.
It is not proof, it is speculation.

> Winners: Verizon, Nextel
> Losers: AT&T, Cingular
> Neutral: Sprint, T-Mobile
>
>
>>Albeit, you cannot fully analyze the impact that WNLP until it has been
>>implemented in the entire country. A majority of the U.S. (at least by
>>area) does not enjoy the luxury of WLNP. I know of many rural areas
>>where Verizon will lose most of its customers to AT&T in a certain market.
>
>
> Highly unlikely. If Verizon is that bad, and AT&T so good, in those areas
> then the majority of those customers will already have left Verizon despite
> having to change numbers. 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."
>
> But just for the record, what are those "many rural areas?"

Washington, Oregon, and Northern California area few places. Of course,
adding coverage and then removing, then adding it again and removing it
again doesn't give Verizon Wireless much credence in some of these areas
(all coverage that has been disputed by customers has been on the
America's Choice calling plan). Overall, Verizon Wireless will probably
be a winner, because it does have the largest network. However, it
noted that in many markets, Verizon Wireless will be a loser.

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

"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.

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
>