1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

ATT vs. Verizon

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Brian Grigg, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     



    › See More: ATT vs. Verizon
  2. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  3. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  4. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  5. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  6. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  7. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  8. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  9. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  10. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  11. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  12. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  13. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  14. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  15. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  16. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  17. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  18. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  19. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     
  20. Ed Swierk

    Ed Swierk Guest

    On 16 Jun 2004, CharlesH wrote:

    > When AT&T Wireless is absorbed by Cingular, won't the current AT&T
    > Wireless customers be moved to Cingular?


    Yes.

    > And the new AT&T provider (whatever it will be called) will start out
    > with no customers, and have to convince people that it will be better
    > to go with them as a SPCS reseller rather than SPCS directly?


    Yes. I expect that AT&T will pitch its mobile phone service as a
    convenient extra service to its existing long-distance and local landline
    phone customers. Package pricing may make using AT&T cheaper for those
    customers than subscribing to Sprint PCS.

    > And they actually expect the public to understand that the old AT&T
    > Wireless had no connection to AT&T Corporation, and the "new" AT&T
    > wireless provider is totally unrelated to the "old" one?


    I think customers have already gotten used to the idea that brand names
    are ephemeral and practically meaningless, be they banks, department
    stores, tech companies or mobile phone service providers. AT&T's new
    mobile service is likely to remain part of AT&T for exactly as long as it
    takes some upper-management pinhead to decide that spinning off the mobile
    unit for short-term investor gain is preferable to nurturing a set of
    products or services for the long term.

    --Ed

    --
    Ed Swierk
    eswierk-nospam@cs.stanford.edu
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?