 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2006Isn't It Ironic -- Don't Ya Think? Cingular *may infact* become "ATTWS" again!
<http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html> [...] | Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the | AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October | 2004. [...] <http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/03/05/ap2571298.html> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684785/from/RS.1/> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/05/business/main1369428.shtml> <http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1690092> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/at_t_bellsouth;_ylt=Atrc9yerk87JAODhB4aSmpys0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--> [...] | After spending millions of dollars to rebrand AT&T Wireless Services | Inc. stores as Cingular stores and hundreds of millions of dollars | more on marketing the new Cingular after its $41 billion acquisition | of AT&T Wireless in October 2004, Cingular will now become AT&T if the | merger with BellSouth is completed. [...] <http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=amq.m_hOsBBM&refer=home> [...] | AT&T will lower costs by dropping the Cingular brand and selling all | its services under the AT&T name as it gains 100 percent ownership of | the biggest U.S. mobile-phone company. [...] | With BellSouth, AT&T would also have more customers to target for its | Web access offering as well as planned television services over faster | fiber-optic lines. (I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of their a.s, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!) [...] <http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-03-06 T003752Z_01_N05197609_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-BELLSOUTH-ATT-DC.XML&pageNu mber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13> [...] | At the completion of the deal, which is expected to close within a | year, all the landline and wireless businesses will exist under the | sole brand name of AT&T, the companies said. [...] <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-03-05-att-bellsouth_x.htm> [...] | Roger Entner, a wireless analyst with Ovum, says, however, that would | be a mistake. "AT&T in wireless is such a wounded name. It gives | everybody the creeps who experienced the AT&T Wireless experience." [...] > | Under the deal, the Cingular brand will be phased out in favor of the > | AT&T brand. The name will be familiar to wireless customers: AT&T > | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October > | 2004. I was perfectly happy with ATT cell service and not eager to be assimilated into the Cingular brand. They gave me no choice if I wanted an updated phone, so I gave in and accepted that stupid Cingular logo on my phone instead of the relatively classy ATT symbol. I have never been impressed with Cingulars service or business practices. I'd prefer it if the old ATT was my cell phone provider, but I have the feeling all we'd get back is the name leaving the crappy Cingular infrastructure in place. What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer who after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the families phones to new high end motorolas. # months later (March 05) get a letter to come in and pick out a new phone as Cingular is taking over and the ones we just purchased (at a cost of over $500) would not be compatible with the new network. The list of phones to choose from had little of quality or comparison to the new phones, but with litle choice we picked out 3 new replacements all to have just a year later the possibility everything is going back to ATT Wireless any way! > <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > [...] Only in name though. When Cingular bought ATTWS there were technical differences that required the changeout. All Cingular will do this time is change the name to at&t to reflect the name of it's parent, SBC who bought at&t and the name. > What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer > who after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >> >> [...] >What truly sucks about this is that as a former ATT Wireless customer who >after several years with them in December 2004 upgraded 3 of the families [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >network. The list of phones to choose from had little of quality or >comparison to the new phones, ... High end Motorola and other phones were in the list.  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > High end Motorola and other phones were in the list. Perhaps in your area, but not here in Va. Beach. Not the 'free' ones any way. >> In <7uNOf.122079$4l5.89855@dukeread05> on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:51:58 -0500, >> "PC [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> High end Motorola and other phones were in the list. >Perhaps in your area, but not here in Va. Beach. >Not the 'free' ones any way. The current lineup for Virginia Beach looks pretty similar to my area, including: * Motorola V557 for $50 * Motorola ROKR E1 (Refurb) for $50 * Motorola RAZR V3 Silver/Black for $100 * Motorola MPx220 (Refurb) for $150 * Motorola SLVR L7 for $200 * Motorola RAZR V3 Pink for $200 SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my plan. But Cingular has had no *carrot* to offer older ATT customers to switch from TDMA to GSM. Even with the Cingular name going away, ATT will still continue to decomission the TDMA system for an eventual all-GSM system. I'm just hoping that ATT will come up with at least one *minimal use* GSM family (two phones) plan for less than $39.99/mo. My current TDMA-based plan w/ two phones is approx $30-$35/mo., depending on useage. Signatureesvanr >I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with >Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my >plan. But Cingular has had no *carrot* to offer older ATT customers to >switch from TDMA to GSM. It's the same "carrot" Cingular offers to new subscribers. Why should it be a better deal? >Even with the Cingular name going away, ATT will still continue to >decomission the TDMA system for an eventual all-GSM system. True. GSM is far more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA"). >I'm just hoping that ATT will come up with at least one *minimal use* >GSM family (two phones) plan for less than $39.99/mo. I think that unlikely. It's not profitable business for the carrier. >My current >TDMA-based plan w/ two phones is approx $30-$35/mo., depending on >useage. That's part of why ATTWS was forced to sell out to Cingular. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with > Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > TDMA-based plan w/ two phones is approx $30-$35/mo., depending on > useage. ATTWS had a $19.95 plan and their Digital One Rate, at $29.99, was extremely popular. Lots of us signed on, and were promised that we could continue with our plans even after the merger. Had Cingular offered to let us migrate to GSM with no change in our rates, there would have been little opposition. What disturbed many of us was the way that Cingular used the planned decommissioning of TDMA as a reason to abrogate its promise to honor all existing ATTWS plans. Yes, I know that GSM is not the same as TDMA, but what did we ATTWS customers care about the transmission protocol. We were not the ones that asked for this change--and I seriously doubt that there was any cost differential to Cingular regardless of which transmission system we were using. They just used this as a reason to twist our arms, and the #1 FCC complaint regarding Cingular is their push to impose unwanted higher rates upon existing customers, according to published reports. As it turned out, Sprint offered me: Three FREE phones, with FREE overnight shipping NO activation charges 7 PM N/W, just like I had on ATTWS FREE M2M, just like on ATTWS Free long distance, just like on ATTWS and my bill is about $5.00 LESS than ATTWS/Cingular was charging me! So I ended up getting essentially the same deal as ATTWS gave me, priced a few bucks less, with call quality that exceeded that of TDMA, and I didn't have to grovel at Cingular's feet to get it! Let Cingular advertise all they want--there are lots of us former ATTWS customers that'll never go back to them. SBC/Cingular can rename themselves "AT&T," but if they continue bullying their customers they will end up just like the former AT&T did--on the scrap heap. It's been 22 years since divestiture--and AT&T is no longer perceived as "Ma Bell." In fact, a significant percentage of adults living today do not even remember the Bell System. >> I haven't liked the ATT-to-Cingular transition, having been with >> Cellular One since '95 and being absorbed into ATT with no change in my [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >ATTWS had a $19.95 plan and their Digital One Rate, at $29.99, was extremely >popular. Unfortunately, that was undoubtedly part of the reason that ATTWS had to sell out to Cingular. >Lots of us signed on, and were promised that we could continue >with our plans even after the merger. And you can. What you weren't promised was that the D-AMPS ("TDMA") network would stay in place forever. >Had Cingular offered to let us migrate to GSM with no change in our rates, >there would have been little opposition. Why should Cingular repeat the mistakes of ATTWS? What makes you entitled to the same discount price forever? Do you likewise bitch when the price of gasoline goes up at your local station? >What disturbed many of us was the >way that Cingular used the planned decommissioning of TDMA as a reason to >abrogate its promise to honor all existing ATTWS plans. ATTWS was transitioning to GSM well before the merger. >Yes, I know that >GSM is not the same as TDMA, Actually it is -- GSM is a TDMA-based system. What GSM is not is D-AMPS. >but what did we ATTWS customers care about the >transmission protocol. We were not the ones that asked for this change-- So what? >and >I seriously doubt that there was any cost differential to Cingular >regardless of which transmission system we were using. How is that relevant? >They just used this as a reason to twist our arms, Nonsense. You were free to switch carriers, and you did. Yet you still whine here. Why? >and the #1 FCC complaint >regarding Cingular is their push to impose unwanted higher rates upon >existing customers, according to published reports. Proof? You need to move on. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > ATTWS had a $19.95 plan and their Digital One Rate, at $29.99, was extremely > popular. Lots of us signed on, and were promised that we could continue > with our plans even after the merger. Cingular was not legally required to allow you to switch to a GSM plan at an equivalent rate. You wouldn't want any company to go beyond what the law requires, be it a wireless company allowing customers to keep the same rate plan, a wireless retail store allowing the return of unopened accessories three days beyond what their sign says, or a camera company servicing products purchased in a different region of the world than where the service center is located. Remember, all that matters is that a company does what is minimally legally required. Never expect anything beyond that. If they lose customers because they won't go beyond the minimal legal requirements then the customer should be berated for expecting anything more, because the law is clear. >> ATTWS had a $19.95 plan and their Digital One Rate, at $29.99, was >> extremely popular. Lots of us signed on, and were promised that we could [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the customer should be berated for expecting anything more, because the > law is clear. I left Cingular and I could not be happier! It all turned out for the best. It is apparent that Cingular had planned all along to renege on their promise to let ATTWS customers keep their plans, because they deliberately failed to disclose their plans to cut back on service to us so that we would cave in to their requests that we accept more expensive plans. And I DO believe that their plan was deliberate, and that is why I was so vocal about my dissatisfaction with them. Unlike the merchandise return issue, this is NOT a matter of law, but of integrity. The Uniform Commercial Code provides that all sales are final except when sellers offer a grace period for returns, or for situations where the goods are not as represented or defective. There is no LAW that says Cingular can't decommission TDMA. But there are probably millions of us that feel betrayed by their using that excuse as a reason to try to coerce us into paying more. As I said, I am happy with the outcome. I'm in my second month with Sprint, my Cingular phones have been deactivated, I'm about to pay my final bill to Cingular and then I will write them off as just an unpleasant vendor. Life goes on without Cingular. I'll leave it to the marketplace to decide what price they will pay for their arrogance. They won't be the first telecommunications company to fall from grace. They just may end up like Humpty-Dumpty--and I confess that I'll be chuckling if that ever happens. >I left Cingular and I could not be happier! It all turned out for the best. Then please move on. Surely you have better things to do with your time then to constantly flame Cingular here. >It is apparent that Cingular had planned all along to renege on their >promise to let ATTWS customers keep their plans, because they deliberately >failed to disclose their plans to cut back on service to us so that we would >cave in to their requests that we accept more expensive plans. Nonsense. The migration of spectrum from D-AMPS ("TDMA") was well along *before* ATTWS merged with Cingular. >And I DO believe that their plan was deliberate, and that is why I was so >vocal about my dissatisfaction with them. If you're going to blame someone, you should be blaming ATTWS, which was doing the migration, and which sold you out to Cingular. >Unlike the merchandise return issue, this is NOT a matter of law, but of >integrity. It's actually just a matter of childish ranting about imagined "bad" acts. >The Uniform Commercial Code provides that all sales are final >except when sellers offer a grace period for returns, or for situations >where the goods are not as represented or defective. There is no LAW that >says Cingular can't decommission TDMA. But there are probably millions of >us that feel betrayed by their using that excuse as a reason to try to >coerce us into paying more. No evidence of that. >As I said, I am happy with the outcome. I'm in my second month with Sprint, >my Cingular phones have been deactivated, I'm about to pay my final bill to >Cingular and then I will write them off as just an unpleasant vendor. Life >goes on without Cingular. Obviously it hasn't, or you wouldn't still be ranting here. >I'll leave it to the marketplace to decide what price they will pay for >their arrogance. Then please do so. Time to move on. >They won't be the first telecommunications company to fall >from grace. They just may end up like Humpty-Dumpty--and I confess that >I'll be chuckling if that ever happens. How childish. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > It is apparent that Cingular had planned all along to renege on their > promise to let ATTWS customers keep their plans, because they deliberately [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And I DO believe that their plan was deliberate, and that is why I was so > vocal about my dissatisfaction with them. I agree, but remember, they were not legally required to not renege on their promise, nor were they legally required to not cut back TDMA service. > Unlike the merchandise return issue, this is NOT a matter of law, but of > integrity. It's very much the same. A company can go beyond what they are legally required to do, in order to gain and/or retain customers, if they wish to do so. > But there are probably millions of > us that feel betrayed by their using that excuse as a reason to try to > coerce us into paying more. Just as people that bought Nikon equipment outside of the U.S. feel betrayed by Nikon when they can't get it serviced. But the law is the law, and g-d forbid Nikon go beyond what the law requires. > I'll leave it to the marketplace to decide what price they will pay for > their arrogance. They won't be the first telecommunications company to fall > from grace. They just may end up like Humpty-Dumpty--and I confess that > I'll be chuckling if that ever happens. Cingular will live on without you as a customer. Their ARPU increased as a result of you leaving, and they won't miss you. Should be CINGULAR CUCKS. >As I said, I am happy with the outcome. I'm in my second month with Sprint, >my Cingular phones have been deactivated, I'm about to pay my final bill to >Cingular and then I will write them off as just an unpleasant vendor. Life >goes on without Cingular. > Sprint could end up with some unhappy customers who have to replace phones when the Nextel network is docommissioned in the coming years. Especially in some areas where Sprint previously didn't have service, it'll be like the flick of a light switch to customers...one day using iDEN, then next day using CDMA. > Sprint could end up with some unhappy customers who have to replace > phones when the Nextel network is docommissioned in the coming years. > Especially in some areas where Sprint previously didn't have service, > it'll be like the flick of a light switch to customers...one day using > iDEN, then next day using CDMA. And if the U.S. government buys out the Nextel network to integrate into the Homeland Security stuff...LOTS of people will be unhappy. >>As I said, I am happy with the outcome. I'm in my second month with >>Sprint, my Cingular phones have been deactivated, I'm about to pay my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the flick of a light switch to customers...one day using iDEN, then next > day using CDMA. It could happen that way, but the evidence so far makes it unlikely. The rumors of a dual-mode phone being released soon are flying, a viable CDMA PTT alternative is only a year or two away, customers are already being incented to switch to CDMA, pricing on both platforms are moving to a single pricing approach and the networks are already starting to share more towers (although I can't think of any big coverage holes that Sprint has where iDen is good). >> Sprint could end up with some unhappy customers who have to replace phones >> when the Nextel network is docommissioned in the coming years. Especially [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It could happen that way, but the evidence so far makes it unlikely. Just the opposite -- it's a huge problem that Sprint hasn't even begun to tackle. >The >rumors of a dual-mode phone being released soon are flying, GAIT was a flop, and dual-mode iDEN-CDMA is likely to be a flop for the same reasons -- technical difficulty, limited selection, high cost, customer hassle. >a viable CDMA >PTT alternative is only a year or two away, Perhaps, but still vaporware. >customers are already being >incented to switch to CDMA, Sprint has actually been pushing sales of iDEN. >pricing on both platforms are moving to a single >pricing approach Has no bearing on the basic problem. >and the networks are already starting to share more towers >(although I can't think of any big coverage holes that Sprint has where iDen >is good). Likewise has no bearing on the basic problem, and there is no real sharing. Migration of iDEN to CDMA will almost certainly be far more painful than migration from D-AMPS ("TDMA") to GSM, and will be even more painful the longer it's put off. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Just the opposite -- it's a huge problem that Sprint hasn't even begun to > tackle. Sure thay have, as I outline below. You are simply too ignorant to see it. When does Cingular plan to announce its selection for a unified billing platform? Any time this decade? >>The >>rumors of a dual-mode phone being released soon are flying, > > GAIT was a flop, According to who? > and dual-mode iDEN-CDMA is likely to be a flop for the same > reasons -- technical difficulty, limited selection, high cost, customer > hassle. That is simply uneducated opinion- any facts to back it up? >>a viable CDMA >>PTT alternative is only a year or two away, > > Perhaps, but still vaporware. Perhaps, but it is still on the horizon. >>customers are already being >>incented to switch to CDMA, > > Sprint has actually been pushing sales of iDEN. And Cingular charges outrageous fees to its customers to switch networks. My statement is still true- you are simply trying to deflect attention away from the truth. >>pricing on both platforms are moving to a single >>pricing approach > > Has no bearing on the basic problem. Sure it does- platform loyalty disappears when everything is equal from a pricing perspective. I wouldn't expect you to understand that. >>and the networks are already starting to share more towers >>(although I can't think of any big coverage holes that Sprint has where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Likewise has no bearing on the basic problem, and there is no real > sharing. Sure it does, but again I would expect comprehension of this to be over your head. > Migration of iDEN to CDMA will almost certainly be far more painful than > migration from D-AMPS ("TDMA") to GSM, and will be even more painful the > longer it's put off. More uninformed opinion? The migration will be much cleaner- customers will be on a single billing platform choosing from familiar and similarly priced and structured rate plans without the imposition of unnecessary and frivolous fees. The selection of CDMA phones allows much more choice than the iDen phones and the pricing of those CDMA phones makes them much more attractive. The billing platform starts unifying this summer- all other things are already in place. Cingular, OTOH, is making migration as painful as possible for the customer- fees, charges, different rate plans, different rules. Agrue all you want about it- it only points out your cluelessness. >>> rumors of a dual-mode phone being released soon are flying, >> GAIT was a flop, > > According to who? GAIT was an intentional flop. There were only two GAIT phones ever manufactured, the Nokia 6340/6340i and the SE T62u. The carriers never made much of push to sell these phones, and the SE T62u offered by AT&T had the usual SE problems. Cingular never even offered GAIT in their stores or on-line in the western region, the region that would have benefited by it the most, because they were terrified of how much roaming would be done onto the AT&T TDMA and AMPS networks. You could get GAIT in the west, if you went directly to Cingular's HQ, and knew who to contact, and indicated that you understood that AMPS and TDMA roaming would only work outside of the Cingular GSM region. One time I sent an e-mail to the press contact of Cingular, who referred be to someone in the office of the president, who told me to have anyone that wanted GAIT to contact her. I referred a bunch of people to her that ended up getting GAIT handsets. What a great system of promoting GAIT, have someone post on Usenet that if anyone wants GAIT on Cingular, to contact him! Many people never even knew what GAIT was. >> and dual-mode iDEN-CDMA is likely to be a flop for the same >> reasons -- technical difficulty, limited selection, high cost, customer >> hassle. > > That is simply uneducated opinion- any facts to back it up? It depends if and when Sprint is able to get satisfactory PTT performance on their CDMA network. Verizon wasn't able to do so. If they keep the iDEN network for PTT only, and the CDMA network for voice and data, that would be ideal if there are at least a few handsets. I suppose that they'll give them three choices, 1) Stick with iDEN for PTT with a dual mode handset, 2) use CDMA PTT with the additional latency, but at a lower monthly cost, or 3) forget about PTT entirely (there actually are some Nextel customers that went to Nextel not for PTT, amazing as it seems). There will be a cut-off date for regular cellular calls on the iDEN network. I don't think that they're going to try to use PTT for the initial connection and then switch the call to CDMA. > The migration will be much cleaner- customers will be on a single billing > platform choosing from familiar and similarly priced and structured rate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in place. Cingular, OTOH, is making migration as painful as possible for > the customer- fees, charges, different rate plans, different rules. It seems that Cingular made it intentionally painful, in order to weed out the low ARPU AT&T customers. Cingular certainly didn't appear very interested in retaining the part of AT&T's customer base that was actually paying attention. >>>> rumors of a dual-mode phone being released soon are flying, >>> GAIT was a flop, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >GAIT was an intentional flop. >[SNIP self-serving puffery] GAIT was actually a market flop. Customers simply weren't interested in the very limited selection of handsets with no real benefit to most customers. That you personally like GAIT is irrelevant -- you're just one of the very few. >It depends if and when Sprint is able to get satisfactory PTT >performance on their CDMA network. Verizon wasn't able to do so. If they >keep the iDEN network for PTT only, and the CDMA network for voice and >data, that would be ideal if there are at least a few handsets. Can't do that, thanks to the iDEN spectrum swap, and the cost and difficulty of keeping iDEN going thereafter. >It seems that Cingular made it intentionally painful, in order to weed >out the low ARPU AT&T customers. Cingular certainly didn't appear very >interested in retaining the part of AT&T's customer base that was >actually paying attention. Cingular has actually been remarkably successful at migrating ATTWS customers. Churn is *down*, not up. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That you personally like GAIT is irrelevant -- you're just one of the very > few. More opinion- how uninteresting. >>It depends if and when Sprint is able to get satisfactory PTT >>performance on their CDMA network. Verizon wasn't able to do so. If they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > difficulty > of keeping iDEN going thereafter. They most certainly can do it and have stated so. Do you have any proof to the contrary or is this more of your uneducated opinionating? >>It seems that Cingular made it intentionally painful, in order to weed >>out the low ARPU AT&T customers. Cingular certainly didn't appear very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cingular has actually been remarkably successful at migrating ATTWS > customers. Rubbish. > Churn is *down*, not up. Churb is *high*, not low is a much more accurate statement. > More opinion- how uninteresting. And incorrect as well. GAIT was very popular with those people that actually understood its enormous advantages, especially the AMPS coverage that you couldn't get with any other GSM phones. The TDMA part of it was not all that useful once the GSM network was adequate. But in California, the advantage of GAIT on Cingular would have been to be able to use the AT&T TDMA network, because when Cingular was 1900 Mhz only, their GSM coverage was horrible. Cingular intentionally didn't want to offer GAIT in the west, and have everyone roaming onto AT&T all the time. So they didn't offer it except to those that knew what it was, and that made an extraordinary effort to get it. It's like insurance, the best plan is often the one that they don't want to sell you. AT&T GAIT was sold in stores out west, but they had only one GAIT phone. and there was less incentive to get a GAIT phone since if you really wanted the better coverage of TDMA and AMPS you simply stayed with TDMA and AMPS for as long as you could. >> Cingular has actually been remarkably successful at migrating ATTWS >> customers. > > Rubbish. Indeed. Had Cingular wanted to, they could have retained nearly all the AT&T customers, and driven churn down to a level closer to that of Verizon, than of Sprint. >> Churn is *down*, not up. > > Churb is *high*, not low is a much more accurate statement. Precisely. 2.1% is better than 2.3% but it still is very high compared to Verizon. 25.2% of your customers leaving each year is still unacceptable. Sprint PCS will likely stop selling iden phones long before they turn the iden network off. Most iden phone users would likely need to replace their phones before the iden network is turned off. For most iden phones users it would be just another deductible business equipment expense. > Sprint PCS will likely stop selling iden phones long before they turn the > iden network off. Most iden phone users would likely need to replace > their phones before the iden network is turned off. For most iden phones > users it would be just another deductible business equipment expense. It remains to be seen whether Sprint will coerce their Nextel customers into re-upping as new Sprint customers--with new activation fees and demands for new 2-year contracts--like Cingular did to us former ATTWS customers. I suspect that Sprint will approach it differently. >> Sprint PCS will likely stop selling iden phones long before they turn the >> iden network off. Most iden phone users would likely need to replace [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I suspect that Sprint will approach it differently. Well one difference is that the Nextel customers are paying a heck of a lot more per month than many of the AT&T customers were paying. There's no question that Cingular intentionally wasn't letting AT&T customers change to GSM and keep their old calling plans. I'm sure that there will be no activation fees, but there probably will be new contracts for new phones, just as there would be new contracts for new phones on Nextel. Well when the iden phones dies and you have to buy a new phone, it will be a cdma phone. If you want the new phone at a discount, you will likely have to enter into a new Advantage Agreement. Since you are buying a new phone is is obvious that you want to stay with them so starting a new Advantage Agreement is not a problem. d[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > Sprint PCS will likely stop selling iden phones long before they turn >the iden network off. Most iden phone users would likely need to >replace their phones before the iden network is turned off. For most >iden phones users it would be just another deductible business equipment >expense. Businesses won't be able to make a gradual transition. Thus it will actually be pretty painful unless Sprint (Motorola) comes up with the very difficult and expensive technical wizardry to seamlessly bridge iDEN and CDMA networks. D-AMPS ("TDMA") migration to GSM is a walk in the park by comparison. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > d[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > networks. > D-AMPS ("TDMA") migration to GSM is a walk in the park by comparison. Rubbish. >We were not the ones that asked for this change--and >I seriously doubt that there was any cost differential to Cingular >regardless of which transmission system we were using. > The owners of AT&T Wireless, the shareholders, voted for this change. Had they not voted for the change, AT&T Wireless would have continued to degrade until the company ceased opearations altogether. And there really is a cost difference. Imagine you have enough land to make one road. No matter how many customers you have, you have the same amount of road. Currently, only 2 customers can use the road at the same time. If you upgrade, 8 customers will be allowed to use the road at the same time. Wouldn't it make sense to upgrade to allow more customers to use the road at the same time? The problem Cingular has emphasised as the reason their family plans are not nationwide like others is because of "different billing systems." This may have come because Cingular acquired various local cellular franchises, took the databases and never converted them but just ran them as they were. At last note from Cingular, this issue was supposed to be resolved within the next 9 months...just in time for a real phone multistate phone company to take over. I can't share minutes with my daughter's 407 phone, my inlaw's 508 phone, and my wife's 561 phone...different billing centers as stated above. AT&T (our first carrier and still the 407/508 carrier) never had an add-a-line program that we could participate in. Let's hope Bellsouth gets it right. >| With BellSouth, AT&T would also have more customers to target for its >| Web access offering as well as planned television services over faster [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of >their a.s, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!) Lightspeed uses fiber-served remote terminals. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>(I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over >>POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of >>their a.s, they'd go FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!) > >Lightspeed uses fiber-served remote terminals. Unimportant and uninteresting, which is why I wrote "FTTP like Verizon's FiOS!". Sure, PL uses FO to the RTs, but all that does is allow POADSL to customers that couldn't perhaps get it before. It doesn't allow for the virtually unlimited bandwidth that FiOS does. Verizon has "methods to their madness" and so does AT&T/Cingular. The parallels in the Cellular world are uncanny. Verizon is known for having the overall best Nationwide coverage (CMDA+AMPS), the technically superior cellular technology (CMDA), looking to the future, and they are not ashamed to charge a premium for it. AT&T/Cingular is more about spending the least amount of money to get by for today and they'll worry about next year in 6 months. Project Lightspeed = mediocre service to a large majority of people in a relatively quick timetable at a lower initial (but larger longterm) cost. FiOS = awesome service to a smaller group at a relatively slowertime table at a relatively larger initial cost. >>>(I thought SBC/AT&T was doing that garbage "Project Lightspeed" over >>>POTS lines, not fiber optic? If SBC/AT&T truly gets their head out of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Unimportant and uninteresting, I disagree. >which is why I wrote "FTTP like >Verizon's FiOS!". > >Sure, PL uses FO to the RTs, but all that does is allow POADSL to >customers that couldn't perhaps get it before. It doesn't allow for >the virtually unlimited bandwidth that FiOS does. It can actually provide tremendous bandwidth if the RT is upgraded to VDSL, which is nearly 10 times the speed of ADSL. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > | Wireless Inc., a spin-off of AT&T, was acquired by Cingular in October > | 2004. Makes sense. The Cingular brand is weak, while the AT&T Wireless brand was much stronger. Less confusion with the asthma medication as well. >> <http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/05/att.bellsouth.ap/index.html> >> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186853,00.html> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Makes sense. The Cingular brand is weak, while the AT&T Wireless brand >was much stronger. Many industry observers would disagree. Thanks to its dismal record in cellular, considerable rebuilding of the brand will be needed. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.