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

"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

---

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

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>

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>

X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:40:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.91.161.177
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1070426405 64.91.161.177 (Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:40:05 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:40:05 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.sprintpcs:126578

I think he meant that the feds aren't as interested in protecting
T-mobile, which probably is correct.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:28:05 -0500, "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.
>
>
>"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>
>




----------------------------
To email me, remove the zz.