Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Fido / February 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Rogers Cingular !

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
JF Mezei - 17 Feb 2004 23:58 GMT
Well, it was Cingular who won. 41 billion dollars for AT&T Wireless. (Analysts
were predicting between 30 and 35 billion). 41 billion in cash. That is a lot
of money.

So they combine Cingular with AT&T to make a formidable company against
Verizon. Vodaphone doesn't have much opportunity left to get its name in the
USA market. Could it increase its stake in Verizon from 45% to something above
60% and then change Verizon's name to Vodaphone ?

That leaves the likes of T-mobile and Nextel out in the dust. Some analysts
speculate that it is a matter of time before they are gobbled up.

And of course, in Canada, it will be interesting to see how Rogers AT&T
reacts to the disapearance of its namesake in the USA. Will Rogers become
Rogers, perhaps return to Cantel, or will they adopt a Rogers-Cingular name ?

The merger of the "big" GSM networks in the USA who have 850 and some
sprinkling of 1900 doesn't bode well for Microcell. Since Microcell doesn't
support 850, they won't be getting any roaming revenus from americans. And
until Micrcocel customers start to have handsets that have 850 in it, they'll
be limited in their USA roaming compared to Rogers customers who have both 850
and 1900.
William Moss - 18 Feb 2004 02:05 GMT
> Well, it was Cingular who won. 41 billion dollars for AT&T Wireless. (Analysts
> were predicting between 30 and 35 billion). 41 billion in cash. That is a lot
> of money.

...>
> The merger of the "big" GSM networks in the USA who have 850 and some
> sprinkling of 1900 doesn't bode well for Microcell. Since Microcell doesn't
> support 850, they won't be getting any roaming revenus from americans. And
> until Micrcocel customers start to have handsets that have 850 in it, they'll
> be limited in their USA roaming compared to Rogers customers who have both 850
> and 1900.

Fido's entry level Siemens A56 (free on contract or retention programs)
covers 850.

I couldn't find any coverage maps on the ATT Wireless site, and the GSM
Association website, while providing coverage maps for ATT, only lists one
system type (either 850 or 1900, but never both) for each GSM provider. It
certainly doesn't differentiate in the coverage maps between 850, 1900, and
850/1900 areas. Also, in many areas, it looks like the Cingular coverage is
better, anyway.

William
Stuart Friedman - 18 Feb 2004 03:50 GMT
Remember that ATTWS and Cingular have many overlapping licenses.  The US FCC
will probably require some divestiture as a prerequisite to this merger.
When Verizon came together, the FCC forced many of the overlapping licenses
to be sold off.  T-Mobile is the likely customer on these because it is the
only other national GSM provider in the US.  I would bet that the 1900mhz
licenses are the ones that go to T-Mobile.

Microcell and T-Mobile really need to come together and offer a "North
American" plan which provides no roaming on the other.  It is strange that
Microcell offers such an arrangement on data, but not voice.

Stu

> > Well, it was Cingular who won. 41 billion dollars for AT&T Wireless.
> (Analysts
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> William
babybug - 18 Feb 2004 06:13 GMT
> Well, it was Cingular who won. 41 billion dollars for AT&T Wireless. (Analysts
> were predicting between 30 and 35 billion). 41 billion in cash. That is a lot
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> be limited in their USA roaming compared to Rogers customers who have both 850
> and 1900.

Rogers AT&T has already announced its name changed to Rogers Wireless a while ago.
Joseph - 18 Feb 2004 22:44 GMT
>And of course, in Canada, it will be interesting to see how Rogers AT&T
>reacts to the disapearance of its namesake in the USA. Will Rogers become
>Rogers, perhaps return to Cantel, or will they adopt a Rogers-Cingular name ?

I guess you have been sleeping, eh?  Rogers announced a while back
that they are forgoing the AT&T of Rogers/AT&T Wireless and are now
known as Rogers Wireless.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
JF Mezei - 19 Feb 2004 01:09 GMT
> I guess you have been sleeping, eh?  Rogers announced a while back
> that they are forgoing the AT&T of Rogers/AT&T Wireless and are now
> known as Rogers Wireless.

Yet, their ads continue to show AT&T, and their retail outlets know nothing
about Rogers dropping AT&T.

Normally, TV and print ads reflect such a change within 24 hours of an announcement.

Perhaps Rogers Wireless is to Rogers AT&T what Microcell is to Fido.

One is the holding/network company, the other the retail/marketing outlet
mistaroboto - 19 Feb 2004 01:17 GMT
Rogers Wireless Communications Announces Initiative to Evolve Brand
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/031202/rogers_wireless_brand_1.html

> > I guess you have been sleeping, eh?  Rogers announced a while back
> > that they are forgoing the AT&T of Rogers/AT&T Wireless and are now
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> One is the holding/network company, the other the retail/marketing outlet
JF Mezei - 19 Feb 2004 01:45 GMT
> Rogers Wireless Communications Announces Initiative to Evolve Brand
> http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/031202/rogers_wireless_brand_1.html

Thanks for the pointer.  makes me wonder if the parent AT&T didn't ask Rogers
to delay this until AT&T Wireless was sold. It wouldn't look too good if At&T
Wireless started to lose licensees at a time it was trying to get the most
money selling its subsidiary.

Now that the sale of AT&T Wireless has been concluded, it will be interesting
to see if Rogers will quickly implement the rebranding, or if Cingular (who
will hold 34% of Rogers Wireless) will want a say on this rebranding.
Steven Fisher - 19 Feb 2004 06:45 GMT
> Rogers Wireless Communications Announces Initiative to Evolve Brand
> http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/031202/rogers_wireless_brand_1.html

Am I the only one who searched the press release for the year? :)

(And yes, it appears to be from December 2003.)
 
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.