Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Jack Zwick
    Guest




  2. #2
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    Jack Zwick wrote:
    > http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/


    Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
    crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
    honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
    Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
    hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
    customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.

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



  3. #3
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

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

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:54:19 -0500,
    Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jack Zwick wrote:
    >> http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/

    >
    >Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
    >crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
    >honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
    >Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
    >hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
    >customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.


    Yep. All this does is make it more clear why SBC/Cingular (1) preserved the
    ATTWS brand [something else Jack has ranted about] and (2) wasn't concerned
    about the name reverting to AT&T.

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



  4. #4
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Jack Zwick wrote:
    > > http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/

    >
    > Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
    > crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
    > honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
    > Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
    > hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
    > customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.


    Maybe Disney and Warner also?

    And dont count your DONE until it hatches.

    We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status. SprintPCS was resorbed into
    Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported. We do know that
    100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
    never materialize, but if 100's of millions is small potatoes, fine.



  5. #5

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    Sprint also has signed deals with Time Warner and Earthlink to become
    MVNO partners.




  6. #6
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

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

    > Sprint also has signed deals with Time Warner and Earthlink to become
    > MVNO partners.


    I forgot about the Earthlink one, you be correct.

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...hlinksk_1.html



  7. #7
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    > Yep. All this does is make it more clear why SBC/Cingular (1) preserved the
    > ATTWS brand [something else Jack has ranted about] and (2) wasn't concerned
    > about the name reverting to AT&T.


    I remember reading that the Sprint PCS deal with AT&T was by no means
    exclusive. AT&T, as it will operate as a separate entity until the
    "merger" is officially approved, would be able to find a multitude of
    reasons why SPCS is not the best suitor. Reasons could include
    difficult negotations with handset manufacturers, the confustion of an
    old name with a different technology and different coverage area, lack
    of international roaming agreements, the list could go on.

    I personally think that no matter what AT&T would be better off
    reselling GSM services. However, if the SBC/AT&T deal goes through as
    planned, it wouldn't really be reselling, it would just be bundling.

    TH




  8. #8
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint


    "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Jack Zwick wrote:
    > > > http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000163029846/

    > >
    > > Zack/Phillipe, what I don't get is that you're harping on this like
    > > crzay as if it was something to be worried about. It isn't, to be
    > > honest. Sprint has plenty of MVNOs on its plate. With Starr PCS,
    > > Qwest, Virgin, Liberty Wireless and ESPN, it's not as if Sprint is
    > > hurting. Add to that Nextel's customers and Sprint's own mainstream
    > > customers, and AT&T is small potatoes.

    >
    > Maybe Disney and Warner also?


    Or Comcast or a multitude of others. No loss of potential.

    >
    > And dont count your DONE until it hatches.
    >
    > We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status. SprintPCS was resorbed into
    > Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported.


    Not true- everything is reported exactly as it was before.

    >We do know that
    > 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
    > never materialize, but if 100's of millions is small potatoes, fine.


    How can you guarantee it would be hundreds of millions? It would take an
    awful lot of customers to get hundreds of millions from a reseller.





  9. #9
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

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

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 01 Feb
    2005 18:17:40 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

    >We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status. SprintPCS was resorbed into
    >Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported. We do know that
    >100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
    >never materialize, but if 100's of millions is small potatoes, fine.


    That "100's of millions" is pure Zwick Fantasy.

    --
    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]



  10. #10
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    Jack Zwick wrote:
    >
    > Maybe Disney and Warner also?
    >
    > And dont count your DONE until it hatches.


    Likewise, I'd ask you not to count "Raising the Bar" with AT&T proper
    until THAT deal hatches. The same regualtory hurdles apply.

    > We don't know do we about SprintPCSs status.


    I certainly do. And anyone who is qualified enough to read a Form 10
    Q/K/A does, and last I checked, the only qualification to read a Form 10
    was a knowledge of the English language. Can YOU read, Phillipe?

    > SprintPCS was resorbed into
    > Sprint and its finances are no longer fully reported.


    That statement is wrong in many ways it's impossibel to count.

    First off, Sprint PCS was never "resorbed" because it was never a
    separate company. A tracking stock was issued, but earnings and assets
    remained a part of Sprint.

    And second, although the PCS tracking stock is gone, there's a whole
    section of each quarterly and annual report that is devoted to financial
    and subscriber information in the PCS division, AND financials are still
    separated between FON and PCS groups.

    > We do know that
    > 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
    > never materialize,


    Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
    getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
    SK-Earthlink.



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



  11. #11
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:


    >
    > > We do know that
    > > 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
    > > never materialize,

    >
    > Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
    > getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
    > SK-Earthlink.


    replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.



  12. #12
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint


    "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > > We do know that
    > > > 100's of millions they could have gotten from AT&T are likely now to
    > > > never materialize,

    > >
    > > Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
    > > getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
    > > SK-Earthlink.

    >
    > replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.


    I'd be willing to bet that either one of the 'minnows' ends up making twice
    the revenue of the dinosaur.





  13. #13
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    Jack Zwick wrote:
    >>Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
    >>getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
    >>SK-Earthlink.

    >
    >
    > replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.


    Well you think wrong, I'm afraid. Nextel is no minnow. There's a very
    palpable difference. The AT&T deal meant starting a new carrier from
    zero; no access to previous AT&T wireless customers, starting completely
    fresh NAD having to worry about the confusion that would have come from
    restarting an old brand on a different network. Compare that with
    acquiring an established carrier like Nextel, that already has millions
    of established, premium-paying customers AND acquiring Nextel's spectrum
    licenses (which are due for a swap ou to 190Mhz) without having to bid
    for them at auction.

    SBC, on the other hand acquired (through Cingular) a wireless company
    that mismanaged itself to the point where it received low makrs and had
    the highest FCC complaint ratios. And it has now bought its parent
    company, which also mismanaged itself to the point where it would not
    have survived without an acquisition. They can have it, really.

    I'll admit I was not a fan of the nextel deal, and I'm still skeptical,
    but it shows better better promise than AT&T.




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



  14. #14
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Jack Zwick wrote:
    > >>Which is more than offset by the "100's of millions" they will be
    > >>getting from Nextel, and from the MVNO agreements with ESPN and now,
    > >>SK-Earthlink.

    > >
    > >
    > > replacing a big fish with two minnows, I don't think so.

    >
    > Well you think wrong, I'm afraid. Nextel is no minnow. There's a very
    > palpable difference. The AT&T deal meant starting a new carrier from
    > zero; no access to previous AT&T wireless customers, starting completely
    > fresh NAD having to worry about the confusion that would have come from
    > restarting an old brand on a different network. Compare that with
    > acquiring an established carrier like Nextel, that already has millions
    > of established, premium-paying customers AND acquiring Nextel's spectrum
    > licenses (which are due for a swap ou to 190Mhz) without having to bid
    > for them at auction.
    >
    > SBC, on the other hand acquired (through Cingular) a wireless company
    > that mismanaged itself to the point where it received low makrs and had
    > the highest FCC complaint ratios.


    AND NUMBER TWO IN WLNP LOSES AND COMPLAINTS: DRUM ROLL:

    SPRINTPCS

    STILL LOW RATED FOR CUSTOMER SUPPORT BY
    THE YANKEE GROUP
    CONSUMERS REPORTS
    J.D. POWER




    > And it has now bought its parent
    > company, which also mismanaged itself to the point where it would not
    > have survived without an acquisition. They can have it, really.
    >
    > I'll admit I was not a fan of the nextel deal, and I'm still skeptical,
    > but it shows better better promise than AT&T.


    Repeat after me. Now that AT&T has been bought out, Verizon and Bell
    South will want a long distance carrier to buy.

    Two companies, two long distance carrier. MCI, Sprint.

    Guess what's going to happen to Sprint.



  15. #15
    carcarx
    Guest

    Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint

    If that means just Sprint landline (assuming this includes long
    distance) I might agree.

    Otherwise there'd be way too much regulatory hassle and divestiture to
    make
    the aquisition by either Verizon or BellSouth worthwhile.




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast