Results 1 to 15 of 24
- 02-01-2005, 09:00 AM #1Jack ZwickGuest
- 02-01-2005, 10:54 AM #2Isaiah BeardGuest
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.
- 02-01-2005, 11:42 AM #3John NavasGuest
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>
- 02-01-2005, 12:17 PM #4Jack ZwickGuest
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.
- 02-01-2005, 12:59 PM #5Guest
Re: More On AT&T Mobile not using Sprint
Sprint also has signed deals with Time Warner and Earthlink to become
MVNO partners.
- 02-01-2005, 02:40 PM #6Jack ZwickGuest
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
- 02-01-2005, 07:02 PM #7Tropical HavenGuest
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
- 02-01-2005, 08:20 PM #8Scott StephensonGuest
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.
- 02-01-2005, 09:48 PM #9John NavasGuest
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]
- 02-02-2005, 03:15 PM #10Isaiah BeardGuest
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.
- 02-02-2005, 04:14 PM #11Jack ZwickGuest
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.
- 02-02-2005, 08:30 PM #12Scott StephensonGuest
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.
- 02-02-2005, 10:03 PM #13Isaiah BeardGuest
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.
- 02-03-2005, 05:17 AM #14Jack ZwickGuest
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.
- 02-03-2005, 08:52 AM #15carcarxGuest
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.
icecasino
in Chit Chat