AT&T Wireless to be reborn

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

When and if Cingular acquires AT&T Wireless, they will soon thereafter
lose the right to use the AT&T name.

AT&T wants to again have its own Wireless brand (so as to have a full
suite of services to sell) (as does MCI).

To that end like AT&T has reached a deal to sell Wireless services under
its own brand name, but use the SprintPCS network, like Virgin Mobile
does.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=2&u=/nm/20
040518/bs_nm/telecoms_sprint_att_dc


(cut and paste the link if Outlook Express "breaks it")

============================

Meanwhile that leaves MCI. Three possibilities:

1. MCI will remain wioth no cellular business (unlikely)

2. MCI will resell Sprint's network like AT&T is now signed on to do.

3. Sprint will buy MCI, now valued at less than $5 Billion after
emerging from bankruptcy. Although they may now have to compete with
Telmex.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040513/telecoms_mci_1.html

Sure a sign of how Bushnomics has changed things if Mexican concerns are
now getting ready to buy American Industries?

Have you got your Bush $2 gasolene yet?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-DC7572.07280918052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> When and if Cingular acquires AT&T Wireless, they will soon thereafter
> lose the right to use the AT&T name.
>
> AT&T wants to again have its own Wireless brand (so as to have a full
> suite of services to sell) (as does MCI).
>
> To that end like AT&T has reached a deal to sell Wireless services under
> its own brand name, but use the SprintPCS network, like Virgin Mobile
> does.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=2&u=/nm/20
> 040518/bs_nm/telecoms_sprint_att_dc
>
> (cut and paste the link if Outlook Express "breaks it")

I was going to post the same info, but put in a link EVERYONE can click on,
instead of having to do a copy & paste. Why don't you use tinyurl.com
Phillipe? For those that don't want to copy & paste, here's another link to
the Reuters article - http://tinyurl.com/2uc2f

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <GOnqc.68$Tn6.7@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob Smith
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Why don't you use tinyurl.com Phillipe?

I don't know about him, but a lot of us don't click on URLs that lead
us down blind alleys. You have NO idea where a tinyurl link will take
you, be it a porn site or whatnot. At least makeashorterlink.com gives
you a preview of where you'll be going.

However, had he put the long URL in angle-brackets <like this>, any
non-braindead usenet reader would have made the whole thing clickable
anyway. That'd be the simplest option for everyone.

--
Garner R. Miller
Manchester, CT =USA=

 

[Guest]

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

For those that don't want to copy & paste, here's another link to the Reuters
article - <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2uc2f">http://tinyurl.com/2uc2f</A>

Thank you for that.

SprintPCS apparently makes good money from its deal with Virgin Wireless, and
likely stands to be helped a lot by this 5 year deal with AT&T, which would
then be hard for AT&T to discontinue, and Sprint PCS could be in the drivers
seat in negotiating a renewal. The Network is built for Sprint's use, and
incremental use is just wonderful for the bean counters. Hopefully not too many
cases of the networks being overused (like happened in Chicago earlier on for
Sprint PCS) will occur. Its very frustrating for users to not be able to place
a call
when they feel the need (i.e. a heavy rainfall at 5 PM).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

I wonder if Mobile to Mobile calls will be treated as such to AT&T v2?
Are SprintPCS calls to Virgin Mobile calls treated as MtoM?

Or are they going to get their own block of numbers or do they already have
that now?

Scotty


"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GOnqc.68$Tn6.7@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-DC7572.07280918052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > When and if Cingular acquires AT&T Wireless, they will soon thereafter
> > lose the right to use the AT&T name.
> >
> > AT&T wants to again have its own Wireless brand (so as to have a full
> > suite of services to sell) (as does MCI).
> >
> > To that end like AT&T has reached a deal to sell Wireless services under
> > its own brand name, but use the SprintPCS network, like Virgin Mobile
> > does.
> >
> >
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=2&u=/nm/20
> > 040518/bs_nm/telecoms_sprint_att_dc
> >
> > (cut and paste the link if Outlook Express "breaks it")
>
> I was going to post the same info, but put in a link EVERYONE can click
on,
> instead of having to do a copy & paste. Why don't you use tinyurl.com
> Phillipe? For those that don't want to copy & paste, here's another link
to
> the Reuters article - http://tinyurl.com/2uc2f
>
> Bob
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <iuoqc.82869$sK3.63701@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
"Scott Nelson - Wash DC" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

> I wonder if Mobile to Mobile calls will be treated as such to AT&T v2?
> Are SprintPCS calls to Virgin Mobile calls treated as MtoM?


Not likely and no.

 

[Mike]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

Scott Nelson - Wash DC wrote:
> I wonder if Mobile to Mobile calls will be treated as such to AT&T v2?
> Are SprintPCS calls to Virgin Mobile calls treated as MtoM?
>
> Or are they going to get their own block of numbers or do they already have
> that now?
>
> Scotty

You know, I wondered the same thing. According to my bill, Virgin Mobile
calls don't count as mobile to mobile for Sprint customers.
-mike

 

[Eric]

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

(Scott Nelson - Wash DC) wrote:
<<Are SprintPCS calls to Virgin Mobile calls treated as MtoM? >>

No, sadly.

Eric

 

[Guest]

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

"Nebby00007" <nebby00007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040518092118.22537.00000696@mb-m29.aol.com...
> For those that don't want to copy & paste, here's another link to the
Reuters
> article - <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2uc2f">http://tinyurl.com/2uc2f</A>
>
> Thank you for that.

You have a problem with your newsreader rendering links. Why is the URL
showing up twice in the same link? It makes the link useless.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rmarkoff-DC7572.07280918052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> When and if Cingular acquires AT&T Wireless, they will soon thereafter
> lose the right to use the AT&T name.
>
> AT&T wants to again have its own Wireless brand (so as to have a full
> suite of services to sell) (as does MCI).
>
> To that end like AT&T has reached a deal to sell Wireless services under
> its own brand name, but use the SprintPCS network, like Virgin Mobile
> does.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=2&u=/nm/20
> 040518/bs_nm/telecoms_sprint_att_dc
>
>
> (cut and paste the link if Outlook Express "breaks it")

Outlook Express didn't break it. Your news client "MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)"
broke it by inserting a carriage return character after the "/20".

--

John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <180520041251571308%garner@netstreet.net>,
Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> wrote:

> However, had he put the long URL in angle-brackets <like this>, any
> non-braindead usenet reader would have made the whole thing clickable
> anyway. That'd be the simplest option for everyone.

Outlook Express still fails on those.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-590412.12061318052004@news06.east.earthlink.net>,
Røbert M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <180520041251571308%garner@netstreet.net>,
> Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> wrote:
>
> > However, had he put the long URL in angle-brackets <like this>, any
> > non-braindead usenet reader would have made the whole thing clickable
> > anyway. That'd be the simplest option for everyone.
>
> Outlook Express still fails on those.

As I said, any NON-braindead newsreader. OE doesn't qualify, I'm
afraid.

--
Garner R. Miller
Manchester, CT =USA=

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In alt.cellular R?bert M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <180520041251571308%garner@netstreet.net>,
> Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> wrote:
>
>> However, had he put the long URL in angle-brackets <like this>, any
>> non-braindead usenet reader would have made the whole thing clickable
>> anyway. That'd be the simplest option for everyone.
>
> Outlook Express still fails on those.

Outhouse Distress is a bug-ridden piece of junk.

He said "non-braindead."

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Røbert M" <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rmarkoff-590412.12061318052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <180520041251571308%garner@netstreet.net>,
> Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> wrote:
>
>> However, had he put the long URL in angle-brackets <like this>, any
>> non-braindead usenet reader would have made the whole thing clickable
>> anyway. That'd be the simplest option for everyone.
>
> Outlook Express still fails on those.

I have no problem clicking on long URLs, unless they are irretrievably broken
by the originator.

John Richards (long-time OE user)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:sL-dnUVy6cWezDfdRVn-tw@lmi.net...
<snipped>

Getting back to the matter at hand, apparently the market likes the deal, as
FON's stock is up $0.49 as I type this. I can see this as a nice revenue
jump for SPCS's bottom line and their unused bandwidth.

The thing I don't get here, will be their dependency on SPCS for the next
five years, and what their current customer base is going to do, ... whether
they go with Cingular with their current handsets and expanded coverage
area, or stay with ATTW and spend lots of money in all new handsets.

As a SPCS customer, I'm not too worried about reduced coverage areas, with
the extra customers accessing the system, as Sprint has said they are adding
2000 new towers coast to coast.

It will be interesting to see how ATTW tries to market their service and how
many customers they take from the Cingular deal. Things might get more
interesting down the road with mergers (if the FTC ever allows it), between
all the companies using SPCS's system (Virgin, Quest & now ATTW).

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Røbert M" wrote:

>
> Have you got your Bush $2 gasolene yet?

$2 Gasoline? How about 2.78 here for premium..
THANK YOU GWB...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <180520041314564033%garner@netstreet.net>,
Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-590412.12061318052004@news06.east.earthlink.net>,
> Røbert M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <180520041251571308%garner@netstreet.net>,
> > Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > However, had he put the long URL in angle-brackets <like this>, any
> > > non-braindead usenet reader would have made the whole thing clickable
> > > anyway. That'd be the simplest option for everyone.
> >
> > Outlook Express still fails on those.
>
> As I said, any NON-braindead newsreader. OE doesn't qualify, I'm
> afraid.

We have posters here who get upset if anyone suggests they use anything
else.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In alt.cellular R?bert M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We have posters here who get upset if anyone suggests they use anything
> else.

Like who?

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <40AA57F0.64E7AC35@NOSPAMearthlink.net>,
Michael Arends <mlarends@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:

> "Røbert M" wrote:
>
> >
> > Have you got your Bush $2 gasolene yet?
>
> $2 Gasoline? How about 2.78 here for premium..
> THANK YOU GWB...

In 2000, Bush Said OPEC Can Be Blamed As the "Main Reason" for Gas
Prices. As a Presidential Candidate in June 2000, Bush said the "main
reason" for gas prices was OPEC withholding production and he "would
hope the administration could convince our friends at OPEC to open up
the spigots." [Associated Press, 6/21/00]


or maybe this one:

"In January 2000, with oil prices at nearly $28 a barrel, Bush called
on President Clinton to 'jawbone OPEC' to get prices to retreat. 'What I
think the president ought to do,' he said while campaigning in New
Hampshire where heating oil prices were soaring, 'is he ought to get on
the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your
spigots,'" according to the Associated Press. [Associated Press, 3/20/01]



"Open the Spigot" was a standard stump phrase of Bush in Spring 2000.

 

[Guest]

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

caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote in message news:<6875-40AA62E1-684@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>...
> (Scott Nelson - Wash DC) wrote:
> <<Are SprintPCS calls to Virgin Mobile calls treated as MtoM? >>
>
> No, sadly.
>
> Eric

But why should they be treated as mobile to mobile? Virgin Mobile is
an entirely different carrier than Sprint. So is Qwest. I never once
thought that would or should happen. Of course it would be nice if
that were the case.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <6875-40AA62E1-684@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>,
caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote:

> (Scott Nelson - Wash DC) wrote:
> <<Are SprintPCS calls to Virgin Mobile calls treated as MtoM? >>
>
> No, sadly.
>
> Eric

And I assume its the same with Quest.

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Larry Thomas <larryt510@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But why should they be treated as mobile to mobile? Virgin Mobile is
> an entirely different carrier than Sprint. So is Qwest. I never once
> thought that would or should happen. Of course it would be nice if
> that were the case.

Well, since, to my knowledge, there is no M2M with Virgin Mobile, such
an arrangement would only benefit Sprint PCS customers anyway, and since
Sprint would have to eat the cost of this service (why would Virgin,
their is no benefit for Virgin customers), it makes no sense to
implement M2M between Virgin and Sprint PCS customers.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAqtnA1p0e3NXsrtERAmgAAJ4kgvSae9IfW18pxyhrwUWXT6yuvQCfSPjH
BpEM5CtzCWKjlx7zVi1y0ls=
=bkNs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"[ a m z ]" <amz.REMOVE@eskimo.THIS.com> wrote in message news:f%tqc.437$Tn6.388@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> And all of that is BS anyway. Forget what Clinton & GWB do or have done
> re:OPEC. That is just a convenient excuse for public consumption. NEITHER
> side wants to blame oil companies or environmentalists. If you just look a
> bit into the petroleum industry, you'd see that these prices have less to do
> with the price of a barrel of crude and FAR more to do with refinery
> capacity and US demand. Since they haven't built a new one in a long time,
> refineries are operating at capacity. People want more gas than they can
> produce. I'm personally not sure why they haven't built more refineries,
> but I'd probably blame environmentalists for making it impossible and/or the
> oil companies for being short-sighted.
>
> ECON 101 -- increased demand + fixed supply = high prices.

I know that my state (CA) is very short on refining capacity.
Personally I won't mind if gas goes to $3 a gallon, the silver lining will be
fewer damn SUVs on the road.

--

John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"John Richards" wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> > People want more gas than they can produce. I'm personally not sure
> > why they haven't built more refineries, but I'd probably blame
> > environmentalists for making it impossible and/or the
> > oil companies for being short-sighted.
> >
> > ECON 101 -- increased demand + fixed supply = high prices.
>
> I know that my state (CA) is very short on refining capacity.
> Personally I won't mind if gas goes to $3 a gallon, the silver
> lining will be fewer damn SUVs on the road.

Was listening to a commentator the other day who pointed out that if you can
afford one of the big SUV's, you likely can afford to spend whatever you
want on gas, too. However, it might well mean fewer broken-down 70's land
yachts and rusty pickups on the road.

 

[Scott]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

>> Outlook Express still fails on those.
>
> Outhouse Distress is a bug-ridden piece of junk.
>
> He said "non-braindead."


I don't necessarily disagree, but try to find a newsreader mail program
that handles IMAP and POP really well and is stable. I have tried Mozilla,
Thunderbird, Poco Mail, Eudora, Netscape and Mulberry and always ended up
reluctantly back to Outlook or OE. I'd love a great alternative but
especially as it relates to IMAP, not very many decent options.