AT&T Will Stay AT&T??

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

dick

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
358
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.

"AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
Wireless in October."

How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
wireless was going away after the first of the year.

Dick
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

That's not ATT Wireless Service, that's the Land Long Distance ATT, they
were 2 separate companies. This will be the same thing as Qwest selling
their own wireless and running it on Sprint PCS' network. There will be no
effect on Cingular customers.

Chris
Happy New Year

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:ti08t011k94mbeiiqf8fib9avri2bkhpam@4ax.com...
> An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
>
> "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
> in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
> AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
> Wireless in October."
>
> How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
> wireless was going away after the first of the year.
>
> Dick
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Thanks for the clarification.

Dick

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:42:39 GMT, "Chris Russell"
<noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

>That's not ATT Wireless Service, that's the Land Long Distance ATT, they
>were 2 separate companies. This will be the same thing as Qwest selling
>their own wireless and running it on Sprint PCS' network. There will be no
>effect on Cingular customers.
>
>Chris
>Happy New Year
>
>"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>news:ti08t011k94mbeiiqf8fib9avri2bkhpam@4ax.com...
>> An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
>>
>> "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
>> in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
>> AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
>> Wireless in October."
>>
>> How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
>> wireless was going away after the first of the year.
>>
>> Dick
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <ti08t011k94mbeiiqf8fib9avri2bkhpam@4ax.com>,
Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:

> An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
>
> "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
> in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
> AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
> Wireless in October."
>
> How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
> wireless was going away after the first of the year.

Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless, and it will be going away.

Cingular issued a press release saying all AT&T Wireless stores were
being rebadged and becoming Cingular stores on November 15. Six weeks
later it hasn't happened in Texas yet.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-89C781.07464330122004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <ti08t011k94mbeiiqf8fib9avri2bkhpam@4ax.com>,
> Dick <LeadWinger> wrote:
>
> > An article in the New York Times this morning is very interesting.
> >
> > "AT&T plans to start marketing Sprint's cellphone service as its own
> > in the first half of 2005, after it wins back the rights to use the
> > AT&T Wireless brand from Cingular Wireless, which acquired AT&T
> > Wireless in October."
> >
> > How is this going to affect Cingular customers? I thought AT&T
> > wireless was going away after the first of the year.
>
> Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless, and it will be going away.
>
> Cingular issued a press release saying all AT&T Wireless stores were
> being rebadged

Rebadged?

>and becoming Cingular stores on November 15. Six weeks
> later it hasn't happened in Texas yet.

Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are CIngular
stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular store.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
CIngular
stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
store.<<

Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
"AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <1104503541.723231.325660@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"notnamed" <notnamed@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
> CIngular
> stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
> store.<<


Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
This was as of Dec 31, 2004

>
> Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
> from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
> "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
> Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-7A6432.10411031122004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <1104503541.723231.325660@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "notnamed" <notnamed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
>> CIngular
>> stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
>> store.<<
>
>
> Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
> and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
> and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
> This was as of Dec 31, 2004
>
>>
>> Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
>> from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
>> "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
>> Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <jzwick3-89C781.07464330122004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 30 Dec
2004 13:48:08 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless,

True.

>and it will be going away.

No, the brand reverts to AT&T, and Cingular will re-brand all existing ATTWS
customers as Cingular.

>Cingular issued a press release saying all AT&T Wireless stores were
>being rebadged and becoming Cingular stores on November 15.

False.

>Six weeks
>later it hasn't happened in Texas yet.

True.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <1104503541.723231.325660@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 31 Dec 2004
06:32:21 -0800, "notnamed" <notnamed@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
>CIngular
>stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
>store.<<
>
>Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
>from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
>"AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
>Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.

That won't happen for at least 4 months (and probably longer), so Scott is
correct.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In <MWfBd.51953$uM5.38945@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Fri, 31 Dec
2004 17:23:56 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Why is this such a hugh issue with you?

Because he wants to whine, and this is one of the few "issues" he can come up
with.

>Who cares if they've change the
>signs or not.

He's probably the only one.

>What difference will that make to anyone except you?

None.

>I'd
>rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
>their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.

Yep.

>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jzwick3-7A6432.10411031122004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> In article <1104503541.723231.325660@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> "notnamed" <notnamed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>Yes it has- they are all now owned by Cingular and as such are
>>> CIngular
>>> stores. A permanent sign is not necessary to operate as a Cingular
>>> store.<<
>>
>>
>> Fine but you go into one of these STILL labeled AT&T Wireless stores,
>> and it is still operating as an AT&T WIreless store, selling AT&T phones
>> and plans, and refusing to help "Cingular" customers.
>> This was as of Dec 31, 2004
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it would have to be, if Cingular is rebadging it (changing it
>>> from AT&T to Cingular.) Especially since AT&T plans to start a new
>>> "AT&T Wireless." Otherwise there would be two AT&T Wirelesses...
>>> Cingular ATT and AT&T Wireless.
>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <MWfBd.51953$uM5.38945@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
> signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
> rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
> their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.

If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-C6707D.16015831122004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <MWfBd.51953$uM5.38945@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
> > signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
> > rather they worry about something that actually matters like building
out
> > their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.
>
> If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
> rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
> providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

They'll probably use the technicians and engineers they have on the payroll,
which probably far outweight the number of carpenters and sign makers. Of
course, the way you are carrying on, I suppose this fact would be news to
you. After all, they are in the business of providing cellular service, not
hanging signs. You are apparently in the business of whining like a spoiled
child who is clueless about the ways of the world.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
>rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
>providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

You are just being silly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <p7sbt01lrevfl0cilgvup9oivruacfv4s6@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
> >rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
> >providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.
>
> You are just being silly.

Sorry you wont face the facts. Are you really Navas?
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-BBC3E8.19125631122004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <p7sbt01lrevfl0cilgvup9oivruacfv4s6@4ax.com>,
> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
> > >rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing
like
> > >providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.
> >
> > You are just being silly.
>
> Sorry you wont face the facts.

Sorry you won't face the facts- you hide like a little child when
challenged, and I find it laughable. But you do make it easy to show you as
the fool you are- no response usually means none is necessary (i.e., you are
wrong).
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:13:02 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>In article <p7sbt01lrevfl0cilgvup9oivruacfv4s6@4ax.com>,
> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
>> >rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
>> >providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.
>>
>> You are just being silly.
>
>Sorry you wont face the facts. Are you really Navas?

Child, you really *do* need to get over yourself in a big way. Next
thing you'll be hearing those black helicopters. And BTW sweetie John
Navas and John S. have been welcomed into my kill filter. You'll need
to find another conspiracy. That one didn't work. I can put you
there too if you'd like!

Re-badging stores doesn't have a damned thing to do with digital
coverage in the boonies. As I said you are just silly and don't argue
about the things that are important. Re-badging stores ain't gonna
affect no one except the anal-retentives who believe it should have
been done at midnight when cingular took over AT&T Wireless.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <jzwick3-C6707D.16015831122004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 31 Dec
2004 22:02:04 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <MWfBd.51953$uM5.38945@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
>> signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
>> rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
>> their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.
>
>If they cant do what they said they'd do

They didn't

>for a simple matter like
>rebadging stores,

Not a simple matter.

>how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
>providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

No relationship whatsoever.

0 for 3

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-C6707D.16015831122004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <MWfBd.51953$uM5.38945@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is this such a hugh issue with you? Who cares if they've change the
>> signs or not. What difference will that make to anyone except you? I'd
>> rather they worry about something that actually matters like building out
>> their infrastructure to areasa where I can still only get analog.
>
> If they cant do what they said they'd do for a simple matter like
> rebadging stores, how the heck are they going to do a complex thing like
> providing you with digital coverage in your boonies.

Maybe they're just concentrating on the things that matter like building out
the coverage in "my boonies" (I didn't know I had any "boonies") and simple
things like signage can wait? If they did state some sort of timeline for
"rebadging" stores, I for one certainly hope they've realized how low that
should be in their priority list and are treating it as such. That's the
last thing they need to worry about.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 03:01:09 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Maybe they're just concentrating on the things that matter like building out
>the coverage in "my boonies" (I didn't know I had any "boonies") and simple
>things like signage can wait? If they did state some sort of timeline for
>"rebadging" stores, I for one certainly hope they've realized how low that
>should be in their priority list and are treating it as such. That's the
>last thing they need to worry about.

Joe Naccio the former CEO of Qwest made a big deal about signage when
they took over USWest and someone aceded to his wishes and they just
put a tacky tarp sign over the US in USWest to make a new sign for the
USWest building in Denver. You can see how important that is now
since Naccio was given the boot. Signage is one of the least
important things.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom