Cingular Now AT&T???

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Fred - 21 Nov 2005 21:56 GMT

I read today in both the Wall Street Journal & USA Today that with the
SBC/AT&T buyout okay'd they are going to drop the Cingular name and go back
to AT&T, what goes around comes around I guess (yeah I know AT&T & AWS
aren't quite the same but so what).

Fred

Reply to this Message

John Navas - 21 Nov 2005 22:05 GMT

>I read today in both the Wall Street Journal & USA Today that with the
>SBC/AT&T buyout okay'd they are going to drop the Cingular name and go back
>to AT&T, what goes around comes around I guess (yeah I know AT&T & AWS
>aren't quite the same but so what).

While SBC is assuming the AT&T name, AT&T Wireless may refer only to wireless
service sold by "the new AT&T" -- see "AT&T To Sell Branded Wireless"
<http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6285901.html>

"This is not a surprise, because when the Cingular joint venture was
created, we anticipated (our parents) might want to offer wireless
services under their own brands," says Cingular Wireless spokesman
Mark Siegel. Cingular is a joint venture of AT&T (formerly SBC) and
BellSouth Corporation. Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless last year.

"Mr. Whitacre's comments changes in no way how we will market
Cingular. Our size and national presence is an advantage for our
parents," Siegel says.

[MORE]

BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own
branding.

Signature

Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Reply to this Message

Fred - 21 Nov 2005 22:05 GMT

I guess we are going back and forth with this one. A quote from today's USA
Today(page 5 B):

"In an interview with USA Today on Friday, Whitcare (Ed Whitcare CEO of the
combined company) left no doubt about his plans. Asked if the company
planned to drop the Cingular name in favor of the AT&T brand, Whitcare said,
"Yes, we do." Whitcare said that AT&T might still use the Cingular name in
certain markets. But the overall plan, he said is to use the AT&T name."

Fred

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own
> branding.

Reply to this Message

John Navas - 21 Nov 2005 22:20 GMT

Read my post more carefully: Cingular Wireless spokesman Mark Siegel was
explicitly clarifying those remarks by Ed Whitcare, which seem to have been
misinterpreted/misquoted by USA Today. (What a shock.)

p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread -- it's
confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.

>I guess we are going back and forth with this one. A quote from today's USA
>Today(page 5 B):
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>> BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own
>> branding.

Signature

Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Reply to this Message

Fred - 21 Nov 2005 23:19 GMT

I'm not sure what you mean by switching posting styles. To my knowledge my
posts are on top & what I'm replying to is underneath.

The thing about your previous post is that Mark Siegel does not seem to say
that Ed Whitcare was misquoted. He basically says that Cingular would do as
it wishes. Your article says that Siegel is a "spokesman" for Cingular
while USA Today AND Wall Street Journal say that Whitcare is the CEO of, I
believe, the new combined company that owns Cingular. If my understanding
of the hierarchy is correct it would seem that the CEO of the company would
be a better source than a spokesman for a division of that company. Please
correct me if I am misunderstanding the situation.

Thanks... Fred

> Read my post more carefully: Cingular Wireless spokesman Mark Siegel was
> explicitly clarifying those remarks by Ed Whitcare, which seem to have
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>>> BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own
>>> branding.

Reply to this Message

John Navas - 21 Nov 2005 23:49 GMT

>I'm not sure what you mean by switching posting styles. To my knowledge my
>posts are on top & what I'm replying to is underneath.

My follow-up to the original post followed it; i.e., was below it. You
responded to my follow-up above the original post, instead of following my
follow-up.

>The thing about your previous post is that Mark Siegel does not seem to say
>that Ed Whitcare was misquoted. He basically says that Cingular would do as
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>be a better source than a spokesman for a division of that company. Please
>correct me if I am misunderstanding the situation.

Cingular is actually a joint venture of the new AT&T (formerly SBC) and
BellSouth, a different company from the new AT&T.

>> Read my post more carefully: Cingular Wireless spokesman Mark Siegel was
>> explicitly clarifying those remarks by Ed Whitcare, which seem to have
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>>>> BellSouth could continue to use the Cingular name, or switch to its own
>>>> branding.

Signature

Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Reply to this Message

Fred - 22 Nov 2005 00:03 GMT

>Cingular is actually a joint venture of the new AT&T (formerly SBC) and
>BellSouth, a different company from the new AT&T.

The USA Today article said that AT&T owns 60% of Cingular and BellSouth 40%,
doesn't that make AT&T the boss?

Fred

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>>>>> own
>>>>> branding.

Reply to this Message

Jer - 22 Nov 2005 01:03 GMT

>>Cingular is actually a joint venture of the new AT&T (formerly SBC) and
>>BellSouth, a different company from the new AT&T.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Fred

Allow me to offer my clarification...

"The USA Today article said that AT&T (formerly SBC) owns 60% of
Cingular and BellSouth 40%..."

Signature

jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Reply to this Message

Jeremy - 22 Nov 2005 14:18 GMT

> The USA Today article said that AT&T owns 60% of Cingular and BellSouth
> 40%, doesn't that make AT&T the boss?

Another article quoted BellSouth as saying that they were not opposed to the
name change from Cingular to AT&T, if it meant more market share for
Cingular. That same article also raised the prospect that SBC was now going
to buy up BellSouth, making any objection to the use of the AT&T name
irrelevant.

Reply to this Message

John Navas - 22 Nov 2005 16:04 GMT

>> The USA Today article said that AT&T owns 60% of Cingular and BellSouth
>> 40%, doesn't that make AT&T the boss?
>
>Another article quoted BellSouth as saying that they were not opposed to the
>name change from Cingular to AT&T, if it meant more market share for
>Cingular.

Again, that might just be service sold by the new AT&T (formerly SBC), not a
name change per se.

>That same article also raised the prospect that SBC was now going
>to buy up BellSouth, making any objection to the use of the AT&T name
>irrelevant.

I'd say it's a no-brainer. There's extra incentive to get such a deal done
soon before pro-business Bush leaves office.

Signature

Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Reply to this Message

Cliff - 03 Dec 2005 04:17 GMT

> I read today in both the Wall Street Journal & USA Today that with the
> SBC/AT&T buyout okay'd they are going to drop the Cingular name and go back
> to AT&T, what goes around comes around I guess (yeah I know AT&T & AWS
> aren't quite the same but so what).
>
> Fred

Not true

Reply to this Message