AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0401210905.5f38ece6@posting.google.com...
> Yazzan Gable <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
news:<gabley-C8D3D4.14021220012004@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
> > infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...
>
> Cingular holds no cellular licenses in California, so there's no overlap
there.

so are they only 1900 in CA?What about Attws? do they have any GSM 850 in
California.

 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:02:12 -0800, Yazzan Gable <gabley@titans.org>
wrote:

>
>California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
>infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...

I doubt it is worse there than it is anywhere else with Mountains as
the primary terrain feature.


Tom Veldhouse

 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:04:48 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
wrote:

>In article <gabley-C8D3D4.14021220012004@news.supernews.com>,
> Yazzan Gable <gabley@titans.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
>> infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...
>
>
>AT&T Wireless, the Company America disTrusts.

Phillip ... the guy cellular enthusiasts distrust!

Tom Veldhouse

 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:11:34 -0800, Yazzan Gable <gabley@titans.org>
wrote:

>
>Talk about rural, I was on the Mutanyu section of the Great Wall of
>China. That's seriously out in the middle of nowahere and about 2 hours
>from Beijing. On a watch tower. Whipped out my phone to make a call.
>Five bars on my T68. Perfect sound from my phone. No dropped calls.
>Last I looked, China was considered Third World (for the moment anyway).

I don't know about the official definition, but I would consider China
a definite Second World country. Their economy will eclipse that of
the US if it keeps growing at the rate that it is. It takes
significant economic resources to put a man into space ... and so far
only three countries have done so ... The Soviet Union (Russia
really), The United States and China.

Tom Veldhouse

 

On 21 Jan 2004 09:09:19 -0800, xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote:

>And yes, there are towers in the park
>(http://www.goldenstatecellular.com/cellmaps.htm).

The last I heard was that all the celluar access in the park is with
towers immediately outside the park. Terrain dictates where signal
penetrates ... which accounts for that spotty map.

Tom Veldhouse

 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:45:13 GMT, "Trey" <treydog90spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>so are they only 1900 in CA?What about Attws? do they have any GSM 850 in
>California.

AWE holds 850 licenses in California.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NO from .NOcom to reply

 

"Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
news:gabley-399505.22113420012004@news.supernews.com...

<snip> Last I looked, China was considered Third World (for the moment
anyway).

Look again...

 

In article <Z_ednQ0Oe6na6JLdRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"Chip" <chip@invalid.com> wrote:

> "Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
> news:gabley-399505.22113420012004@news.supernews.com...
>
> <snip> Last I looked, China was considered Third World (for the moment
> anyway).
>
> Look again...
>
>

I just did...when I was there 2 months ago. Despite the wealthy cities
on the coast (Shanghai, HK, Macau, etc) and Beijing, the rest of the
country is considered "third world" in terms of quality of life and
median income.

China has always been a paradox; 1st world pretentions and 3rd world
entitlements. See for an example, it's recent space shot (1st world
pretentions) and the conditions in western china, per capita income and
how they demand aid (3rd world prententions).

What parts of China do YOU go to on a regular basis?

 

verizon is find in san fran and all the surrounding areas, there is one dead
place that i know about, that is 80 in berkley. besides that it is great,
"Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
news:gabley-399505.22113420012004@news.supernews.com...
> In article <Y6oPb.19705$1e.15499@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
> > news:gabley-C8D3D4.14021220012004@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
> > > infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...
> >
> > Perhaps, but most third world countries don't have the large open spaces
> > like we have in California
>
> Talk about rural, I was on the Mutanyu section of the Great Wall of
> China. That's seriously out in the middle of nowahere and about 2 hours
> from Beijing. On a watch tower. Whipped out my phone to make a call.
> Five bars on my T68. Perfect sound from my phone. No dropped calls.
> Last I looked, China was considered Third World (for the moment anyway).
>
> > When I had Cingular, the coverage was horrid, with AT&T TDMA it was
okay,
>
> I'm in San Francisco. Cingular has spent zero money on useful things
> out here like coverage and being able to provide decent voice service.
>
> However, we can spend oodles of money on GPRS and all sorts of add on
> services that Cingular has spent millions on...
>
> And I'll agree that Verizon is pretty good in SF. Sprint got better
> too, especially in the avenues.

 

"Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
news:gabley-399505.22113420012004@news.supernews.com...

> Talk about rural, I was on the Mutanyu section of the Great Wall of
> China. That's seriously out in the middle of nowahere and about 2 hours
> from Beijing. On a watch tower. Whipped out my phone to make a call.
> Five bars on my T68. Perfect sound from my phone. No dropped calls.
> Last I looked, China was considered Third World (for the moment anyway).

A VP at my last company once stated: 'I can call from China on my Cingular
phone, but I can't call from Santa Clara.'
Korea's like eastern China. It would be very rare to be anywhere without
coverage.

I hope Cingular ends up with AT&T so we'll finally get as close to a
national GSM carrier with 800 Mhz, as we can hope for.

 

"Doc" <chashamilton99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WRSNb.9792$q4.350@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-AB6FB2.05472416012004@news05.west.earthlink.net...
>
> > AT&T is apparently shopping AT&T Wireless around, perhaps just to boost
> > the price it might get from Cingular, perhaps just to see what could
> > happen.
> >
>
> Heh, heh-- let's all chip in and buy it! Then we could run it the way we
> want.

Argh, did you see their 4Q2003 results? Increased churn, drastically reduced
numbers of customer adds. No thanks. Cingular didn't do great either in
terms of customer adds, but at least their churn didn't go up.

 

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:cXbQb.24786$zj7.3702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Doc" <chashamilton99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:WRSNb.9792$q4.350@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:rmarkoff-AB6FB2.05472416012004@news05.west.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > AT&T is apparently shopping AT&T Wireless around, perhaps just to
boost
> > > the price it might get from Cingular, perhaps just to see what could
> > > happen.
> > >
> >
> > Heh, heh-- let's all chip in and buy it! Then we could run it the way we
> > want.
>
> Argh, did you see their 4Q2003 results? Increased churn, drastically
reduced
> numbers of customer adds. No thanks. Cingular didn't do great either in
> terms of customer adds, but at least their churn didn't go up.
>
>
Have you been to a Cingular store lately? I went to one the other day, wow,
what a lazy sales rep! he didn't even stand up, he just sat at the counter
the whole time. Then his sales pitch, he just mumbled through it. I went to
Verizon, and it was completely different. The sales rep greeted me, I talked
to him about the plans, and we both played with the phones for a while,
trying to figure out what phone would work best. Even my ATTWS experience
was better then Cingular. As for the T-mobile store, well, the Rep was just
plain cute, and it didn't matter what she said. She had a Boyfriend though,
oh well... anyways... I don't know if that was just a bad Cingular store or
what, but I was not impressed. If Cingular wants more customers, the rep
needs to at least smile.

 

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:cXbQb.24786$zj7.3702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> Argh, did you see their 4Q2003 results? Increased churn, drastically
reduced
> numbers of customer adds. No thanks. Cingular didn't do great either in
> terms of customer adds, but at least their churn didn't go up.

Where can I find churn numbers and customer adds?

 

"John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<UlIQb.143921$xy6.651197@attbi_s02>...

> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:cXbQb.24786$zj7.3702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <snip>
> > Argh, did you see their 4Q2003 results? Increased churn, drastically reduced
> > numbers of customer adds. No thanks. Cingular didn't do great either in
> > terms of customer adds, but at least their churn didn't go up.
>
> Where can I find churn numbers and customer adds?

In each carriers' quarterly earnings releases.

 

"John Phillips" <0jdp@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UlIQb.143921$xy6.651197@attbi_s02...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:cXbQb.24786$zj7.3702@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <snip>
> > Argh, did you see their 4Q2003 results? Increased churn, drastically
> reduced
> > numbers of customer adds. No thanks. Cingular didn't do great either in
> > terms of customer adds, but at least their churn didn't go up.
>
> Where can I find churn numbers and customer adds?

Only Cingular and AT&T have reported 4Q2003 results. Once all six national
carriers have reported I'll add a page to my site with the statistics and
charts. You can do a search on Google News for the results so far.

3rd quarter 2003 is here: http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/statistics3q.htm

 

I may just be totally misunderstanding your post, but Cingular and AT&T are
both in the North Alabama area(Birmingham/Huntsville) and the Atlanta area,
along with Nashville. I'm sure there are many others throughout the SE.


"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0401192326.2c132a2d@posting.google.com...
> "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message
news:<100p5cc4afisff0@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > They overlap all through the SE on TDMA. Are you talking about GSM
only?
>
> I'm talking about cellular market areas (CMAs) where both ATTWS and
> Cingular are licensed to provide service, regardless of technology.
> The 18 markets listed below is exactly where such overlap occurs. If
> you believe that ATTWS and Cingular overlap in other cellular markets
> please name them specifically.
>
> > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:298d9cbf.0401191538.331f7d02@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Actually, there are not that many markets where AT&T and Cingular
> > > overlap. I went through this exercise a couple months ago and from
> > > what I remember, the only markets where overlap exists are in the
> > > following 4 states:
> > >
> > > * CT: CT-1
> > > * OK: Oklahoma City (partial), OK-3 (partial)
> > > * TX: Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Sherman/Denison, TX-6,
> > > TX-11 (partial)
> > > * FL: Miami, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach,
> > > Jacksonville, FL-2 (partial), FL-4 (partial), FL-5 (partial)

 

"What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message news:<10191fu4tf2ag0b@corp.supernews.com>...

> "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0401192326.2c132a2d@posting.google.com...
>
> > "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message news:<100p5cc4afisff0@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0401191538.331f7d02@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Actually, there are not that many markets where AT&T and Cingular
> > > > overlap. I went through this exercise a couple months ago and from
> > > > what I remember, the only markets where overlap exists are in the
> > > > following 4 states:
> > > >
> > > > * CT: CT-1
> > > > * OK: Oklahoma City (partial), OK-3 (partial)
> > > > * TX: Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Sherman/Denison, TX-6,
> > > > TX-11 (partial)
> > > > * FL: Miami, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach,
> > > > Jacksonville, FL-2 (partial), FL-4 (partial), FL-5 (partial)
> > >
> > > They overlap all through the SE on TDMA. Are you talking about GSM only?
> >
> > I'm talking about cellular market areas (CMAs) where both ATTWS and
> > Cingular are licensed to provide service, regardless of technology.
> > The 18 markets listed below is exactly where such overlap occurs. If
> > you believe that ATTWS and Cingular overlap in other cellular markets
> > please name them specifically.
>
> I may just be totally misunderstanding your post, but Cingular and AT&T are
> both in the North Alabama area(Birmingham/Huntsville) and the Atlanta area,
> along with Nashville. I'm sure there are many others throughout the SE.

Keep in mind that the original post was talking about overlap of
cellular licenses only. While ATWTS provides service in Birmingham
and Atlanta, it does not provide cellular service and does not have
cellular licenses in these markets, whereas Cingular does. You can
find the owners of each cellular license by market at
http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/regions.html. The FCC now
generally allows carriers to aggregate spectrum as long as one carrier
doesn't control both cellular licenses within a single market (there
are exceptions to this rule, but let's just assume this for
simplicity's sake). A carrier controlling a cellular and a PCS
license (as would be the case with a Cingular/ATTWS merger in
Birmingham and Atlanta) is of little concern to the FCC whereas a
carrier controlling both cellular licenses (as would be the case in
Dallas or Miami) would be of considerable concern.

 

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

In alt.cellular.verizon George <George@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> I thought AT&T wireless was already a separate company when AT&T spun them
> off a few years back?
>

They are separate in the same way as Sprint PCS and Sprint are ...
except that I believe the stock for AT&T is not a tracking stock. The
main reason is so that financials are separate and the company is easy
to sell.

- --
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

iD8DBQFAFcJv1p0e3NXsrtERAj1EAKCuseCawIZ423LzsOBOTicnnGqfIgCcC8nz
2XnR9Vlss4d4WqhOTuIb4hc=
=Ac67
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4015c272$0$41294$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.cellular.verizon George <George@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > I thought AT&T wireless was already a separate company when AT&T spun
them
> > off a few years back?
> >
>
> They are separate in the same way as Sprint PCS and Sprint are ...
> except that I believe the stock for AT&T is not a tracking stock. The
> main reason is so that financials are separate and the company is easy
> to sell.

Actually Tom, they are a completely different corporation now, much like
Lucent is. There is no connection to AT&T, other than leasing the AT&T
Wireless name from them. Sprint PCS is a division of Sprint.

 

At least for North Alabama, AT&T did own the license, until Tritel purchased
that licensed and started SunCom in this area. Telecorp assumed ownership
of the license when they bought Tritel, then AT&T regained ownership when
they purchased SunCom.
"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0401252353.3e6fabb2@posting.google.com...
> "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message
news:<10191fu4tf2ag0b@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0401192326.2c132a2d@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message
news:<100p5cc4afisff0@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >
> > > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0401191538.331f7d02@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, there are not that many markets where AT&T and Cingular
> > > > > overlap. I went through this exercise a couple months ago and
from
> > > > > what I remember, the only markets where overlap exists are in the
> > > > > following 4 states:
> > > > >
> > > > > * CT: CT-1
> > > > > * OK: Oklahoma City (partial), OK-3 (partial)
> > > > > * TX: Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Sherman/Denison, TX-6,
> > > > > TX-11 (partial)
> > > > > * FL: Miami, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach,
> > > > > Jacksonville, FL-2 (partial), FL-4 (partial), FL-5 (partial)
> > > >
> > > > They overlap all through the SE on TDMA. Are you talking about GSM
only?
> > >
> > > I'm talking about cellular market areas (CMAs) where both ATTWS and
> > > Cingular are licensed to provide service, regardless of technology.
> > > The 18 markets listed below is exactly where such overlap occurs. If
> > > you believe that ATTWS and Cingular overlap in other cellular markets
> > > please name them specifically.
> >
> > I may just be totally misunderstanding your post, but Cingular and AT&T
are
> > both in the North Alabama area(Birmingham/Huntsville) and the Atlanta
area,
> > along with Nashville. I'm sure there are many others throughout the SE.
>
> Keep in mind that the original post was talking about overlap of
> cellular licenses only. While ATWTS provides service in Birmingham
> and Atlanta, it does not provide cellular service and does not have
> cellular licenses in these markets, whereas Cingular does. You can
> find the owners of each cellular license by market at
> http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/regions.html. The FCC now
> generally allows carriers to aggregate spectrum as long as one carrier
> doesn't control both cellular licenses within a single market (there
> are exceptions to this rule, but let's just assume this for
> simplicity's sake). A carrier controlling a cellular and a PCS
> license (as would be the case with a Cingular/ATTWS merger in
> Birmingham and Atlanta) is of little concern to the FCC whereas a
> carrier controlling both cellular licenses (as would be the case in
> Dallas or Miami) would be of considerable concern.