"Sprint Sells Service To AT&T Mobile"

<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"

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, at 17:45:30 [GMT GMT] (04:45:30 Tuesday, 18 January
2005 where I live) "John Navas" wrote:

> 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.

Why would Cingular allow that to happen?

--
Man loves little and often, woman much and rarely.

I've heard about that too. While Cingular might not be pleased, unless
they bought the ATT Wireless name and/or a non-compete clause they may
have no recourse. Other ATT units that weren't related to ATTWS also
might have the right to market cell services even if Cingular bought the
ATTWS name. It what they call a "sticky wicket!" Oftentimes a long
distance company will sell off it's subscriber base for cash and then go
out and build it up again and sell it again.

From:John Phillips
[email protected]

> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, at 17:45:30 [GMT GMT] (04:45:30 Tuesday, 18
> January 2005 where I live) "John Navas" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Why would Cingular allow that to happen?
>
> --
> Man loves little and often, woman much and rarely.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've heard about that too. While Cingular might not be pleased, unless
> they bought the ATT Wireless name and/or a non-compete clause they may
> have no recourse. Other ATT units that weren't related to ATTWS also
> might have the right to market cell services even if Cingular bought the
> ATTWS name. It what they call a "sticky wicket!" Oftentimes a long
> distance company will sell off it's subscriber base for cash and then go
> out and build it up again and sell it again.
>
> From:John Phillips
> [email protected]
>
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, at 17:45:30 [GMT GMT] (04:45:30 Tuesday, 18
> > January 2005 where I live) "John Navas" wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Why would Cingular allow that to happen?
> >
> > --
> > Man loves little and often, woman much and rarely.
>
It the articule does not say it was AT&T wireless that was doing this. It
just mentions AT&T. So it is probably the parent company AT&T that is doing
this. Once they buy back the rights to the AT&T Wireless name that is.

JW

Actually, the "parent" company wasn't a parent. ATT spun off ATTWS as a
fully autonomous company. They could just us the ATT name alone or call
it ATT Mobile or whatever.

From:JW
[email protected]

> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I've heard about that too. While Cingular might not be pleased,
>> unless they bought the ATT Wireless name and/or a non-compete clause
>> they may have no recourse. Other ATT units that weren't related to
>> ATTWS also might have the right to market cell services even if
>> Cingular bought the ATTWS name. It what they call a "sticky
>> wicket!" Oftentimes a long distance company will sell off it's
>> subscriber base for cash and then go out and build it up again and
>> sell it again.
>>
>> From:John Phillips
>> [email protected]
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, at 17:45:30 [GMT GMT] (04:45:30 Tuesday, 18
>>> January 2005 where I live) "John Navas" wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Why would Cingular allow that to happen?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Man loves little and often, woman much and rarely.
>>
> It the articule does not say it was AT&T wireless that was doing
> this. It just mentions AT&T. So it is probably the parent company
> AT&T that is doing this. Once they buy back the rights to the AT&T
> Wireless name that is.
>
> JW

John Phillips wrote:

>>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.


> Why would Cingular allow that to happen?

Why wouldn't it? Cingular does not own the AT&T trademark, AT&T does.
AT&T has simply been licensing the rights to use the associated rbrand
to what was AT&T wireless as a courtesy to the company that was spun off
from AT&T a few years back.

Now that this entity has been bought out, the rights terminate, and AT&T
will have the sole right to license the name or use it as it pleases,
not Cingular.



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

In article <mrWGd.1612$Nu.1580@fed1read04>, "JW" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It the articule does not say it was AT&T wireless that was doing this. It
> just mentions AT&T. So it is probably the parent company AT&T that is doing
> this. Once they buy back the rights to the AT&T Wireless name that is.

Buy back, nothing. They automatically regain the use of the name, 6
months after the merger of October 23 when Cingular loses the right to
use the name AT&T, but I still see all these stores that say AT&T
Wireless.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 17 Jan
2005 22:36:27 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <mrWGd.1612$Nu.1580@fed1read04>, "JW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It the articule does not say it was AT&T wireless that was doing this. It
>> just mentions AT&T. So it is probably the parent company AT&T that is doing
>> this. Once they buy back the rights to the AT&T Wireless name that is.
>
>Buy back, nothing. They automatically regain the use of the name, 6
>months after the merger of October 23 when Cingular loses the right to
>use the name AT&T, but I still see all these stores that say AT&T
>Wireless.

Which matters only to you. Get a life.

--
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]

There are going to be a ton of confused folks out there.
"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, the "parent" company wasn't a parent. ATT spun off ATTWS as a
> fully autonomous company. They could just us the ATT name alone or call it
> ATT Mobile or whatever.
>
> From:JW
> [email protected]
>
>> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I've heard about that too. While Cingular might not be pleased,
>>> unless they bought the ATT Wireless name and/or a non-compete clause
>>> they may have no recourse. Other ATT units that weren't related to
>>> ATTWS also might have the right to market cell services even if
>>> Cingular bought the ATTWS name. It what they call a "sticky
>>> wicket!" Oftentimes a long distance company will sell off it's
>>> subscriber base for cash and then go out and build it up again and
>>> sell it again.
>>>
>>> From:John Phillips
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, at 17:45:30 [GMT GMT] (04:45:30 Tuesday, 18
>>>> January 2005 where I live) "John Navas" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Why would Cingular allow that to happen?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Man loves little and often, woman much and rarely.
>>>
>> It the articule does not say it was AT&T wireless that was doing
>> this. It just mentions AT&T. So it is probably the parent company
>> AT&T that is doing this. Once they buy back the rights to the AT&T
>> Wireless name that is.
>>
>> JW
>
>

There already are. That's what they're counting on. ;o))

From:Stuart Friedman
[email protected]

> There are going to be a ton of confused folks out there.
> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Actually, the "parent" company wasn't a parent. ATT spun off ATTWS
>> as a fully autonomous company. They could just us the ATT name alone
>> or call it ATT Mobile or whatever.
>>
>> From:JW
>> [email protected]
>>
>>> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I've heard about that too. While Cingular might not be pleased,
>>>> unless they bought the ATT Wireless name and/or a non-compete
>>>> clause they may have no recourse. Other ATT units that weren't
>>>> related to ATTWS also might have the right to market cell services
>>>> even if Cingular bought the ATTWS name. It what they call a
>>>> "sticky wicket!" Oftentimes a long distance company will sell off
>>>> it's subscriber base for cash and then go out and build it up
>>>> again and sell it again.
>>>>
>>>> From:John Phillips
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, at 17:45:30 [GMT GMT] (04:45:30 Tuesday, 18
>>>>> January 2005 where I live) "John Navas" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would Cingular allow that to happen?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Man loves little and often, woman much and rarely.
>>>>
>>> It the articule does not say it was AT&T wireless that was doing
>>> this. It just mentions AT&T. So it is probably the parent company
>>> AT&T that is doing this. Once they buy back the rights to the AT&T
>>> Wireless name that is.
>>>
>>> JW

BruceR wrote:
> There already are. That's what they're counting on. ;o))

I should hope not. Unfortunately, AT&T wireless may as well be FAC
Wireless ("Find Another Carrier") with the way that company tarnished
that brand.

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

Among the masses the AT&T brand still means a lot and is very powerful.
While those who frequent this board probably know better, people just
really have this inate trust in AT&T that harkens back to the days of
the Bell System and what that stood for. The fact is that AT&T has
ALWAYS been sleazy all the way back to Al Bell's theft of Elisha Gray's
original patent on the telephone. They did build a helluva good network
in its day though.

From:Isaiah Beard
[email protected]

> BruceR wrote:
>> There already are. That's what they're counting on. ;o))
>
> I should hope not. Unfortunately, AT&T wireless may as well be FAC
> Wireless ("Find Another Carrier") with the way that company tarnished
> that brand.
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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>

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.

[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>