1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  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!

NEWS: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PDA Man, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. James Tullin

    James Tullin Guest

    In article <l240tv8nnljbv292cr842gf97f9do79ji2@4ax.com>,
    Melee <melee@optonline.net> wrote:

    > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.



    You forget. It's Republicans running the FTC now. Most consumers don't
    care whether their phone is GSM or CDMA or TDMA or iDEN. They just want
    good coverage ad no surprises on their bill, and an 800 # with folks
    that are friendly and helpful.



    › See More: NEWS: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004
  2. WAW

    WAW Guest

    TMobile has some of the best backing in the industry. Even if it did
    go away, there would still be Verizon, Nextel and Sprint (though maybe
    not for long). I think as long as Verizon and Nextel would still be
    around, 3-way competition would be enough to approve a merger.
    >
    > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.
  3. "Melee" <melee@optonline.net> wrote in message
    news:l240tv8nnljbv292cr842gf97f9do79ji2@4ax.com...
    >
    > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.


    A monopoly would apply to an industry, not the use of a particular
    technology within an industry. Thus, there would still be Verizon, Nextel
    and AT&T (ignoring the lack of Sprint here). That would not be a monopoly.

    Tom Veldhouse
  4. That is true. If you ask a person what type of technology his/her phone is
    working on you will get a blank face answer.

    "James Tullin" <jtullin23@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:jtullin23-8B4767.06070405122003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <l240tv8nnljbv292cr842gf97f9do79ji2@4ax.com>,
    > Melee <melee@optonline.net> wrote:
    >
    > > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    > > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    > > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.

    >
    >
    > You forget. It's Republicans running the FTC now. Most consumers don't
    > care whether their phone is GSM or CDMA or TDMA or iDEN. They just want
    > good coverage ad no surprises on their bill, and an 800 # with folks
    > that are friendly and helpful.
  5. Clay

    Clay Guest

    Western is a CDMA carrier for their own customers. They support TDMA and now
    GSM for roaming. They are adding GSM to their towers using 1900 mhz spectrum
    acquired from T-Mobile (formerly voicestream who was at one time a
    subsidiary of Western).




    "Aboutdakota" <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message
    news:3FD0AD80.5060408@hot-mail.com...
    >
    >
    > WAW wrote:
    > > I think that if anything happens, it will be a Cingular/AT&T Wireless
    > > deal. Here's what I see AT&T Wireless doing to make themselves
    > > attractive (off the top of my head):
    > >
    > > -Dropping their IT Payroll down to almost zilch. Brings up the
    > > profitability.
    > > -Selling off all overseas stakes in other providers. Ditto.
    > > -Recent focus in financials on profitability. They've moved from
    > > "here's how many new people we're getting" to "here's how much we're
    > > making per subscriber".
    > >
    > > I also found it interesting that Rogers in Canada will be dropping the
    > > "AT&T" from their name, again some time in mid '04.
    > >
    > > Finally, I think it would be easier to work around NTT's 16% stake in
    > > AWE than D. Telekom's hold on TMobile.

    >
    > Yes, however, if there was a Cingular/AT&T WS deal, I think that the
    > newly formed wirless carrier would probably ally T-Mobile more than
    > crush it (at least for now). Cingular/T-Mobile have some attractive
    > deals going on with each other, and I think the new company and T-Mobile
    > would "swap" coverage areas, meaning that T-Mobile would be responsible
    > for building out into more rural areas in some instances, and Cingular
    > would be responsible to build out in other areas, thus helping spread
    > the GSM coverage.
    >
    > I also think that Cingular is very interested in Western Wireless.
    > Western Wireless, being primarily a rural wireless service provider, is
    > not very profitable, if at all (depending upong the time). I have heard
    > rumours that Western Wireless is going to sell out to Cingular, and
    > suddenly right after those rumours, Western Wireless announced it is
    > going to build an 850/1900 GSM/GPRS network (interesting, isn't it?).
    > the acquisition of Western Wireless, which almost all of the markets it
    > operates in do not overlap with Cingular markets, would hardly be a
    > problem with 850 A/B spectrum cap. It would also give Cingular a huge
    > advantage to have a much larger native network.
    >
    > Not only that, but AT&T and Cingular are Western's largest roaming
    > partners, and AT&T alone controls almost 20% of Western's revenue from
    > roaming from its own customers. If a Cingular/AT&T deal were to arise,
    > Western Wireless would be at the mercy of the new carrier not only for
    > revenue, but also for allowing its customers to roam. Of course,
    > there's also the idea of a hostile takeover, too.
    >
    > If Cingular/AT&T/Western Wireless could all unite, I think we would see
    > (after the bugs worked out) a massively large, stable, native network
    > coverage area.
    >
    > ==AD
    >
  6. Clay

    Clay Guest

    WW currenty has just over 100 towers in 5 midwest states live with GSM 1900
    for ROAMING purposes only. WW has zero future plans to allow their own
    subscribers to use their GSM Network. FYI WW uses Cellular A side for all of
    their Cellular One markets and has 1 PCS market in Amarillo Texas operating
    under the Western Wireless brand name.


    "Aboutdakota" <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message
    news:3FD2277E.3040309@hot-mail.com...
    >
    >
    > Clay wrote:
    > > Western is a CDMA carrier for their own customers. They support TDMA and

    now
    > > GSM for roaming. They are adding GSM to their towers using 1900 mhz

    spectrum
    > > acquired from T-Mobile (formerly voicestream who was at one time a
    > > subsidiary of Western).

    >
    >
    > Do you have any idea where these GSM 1900 areas are? So far, I only
    > know of GSM 850. If I was told correctly by a Cellular One
    > representative, WW is mostly cellular A and B across the board.
    >
    > ==AD
    >
  7. Re: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

    "Aboutdakota" <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message
    news:3FD22717.7080400@hot-mail.com...
    > > I don't think we'll really be able to see if these predictions are true
    > > until we look at market share a year from now. As we've seen in the
    > > newsgroups, many people who were planning to change carriers right away
    > > found out that their carrier extended their contract without permission.

    We
    > > could make guesses on market share for the 3Q2004 and see who's the

    closest!
    >
    > Market share only means one thing in the viability of a wireless
    > carrier: the number of cutomers.


    Not true. Market share has a lot more impact than you realize. For national
    carries there is a critical mass to have an operating profit, and unless
    there are extenuating circumstances, the larger the market share, the larger
    the operating profit. You amortize all your fixed costs and your marketing
    costs over a much larger number of customers. Extenuating circumstances
    include an abnormally high level of capital expenditures, such as what
    occurred with AT&T and Cingular in their transition from TDMA to GSM. What's
    especially interesting is that the most profitable carriers are not
    necessarily the ones with the highest ARPU.

    > It doesn't really matter how many customers a company has, the only
    > thing that matters is that the company is not losing money all the time.
    > I'm pretty sure that a carrier with $15 million customers, but loses
    > $10 billion dollars per year will not last as long as a small regional
    > carrier with maybe 100,000 customers, but makes $1 million per year.


    This is not a good comparison. The small company likely has no competition
    and is making big bucks from both roaming charges and from not having to
    compete with lower rate national carriers. There are always profitable
    niches that a national carrier can't fill because they'd have to charge the
    same lower rates in a rural area that they charge in an urban area, but the
    rural area requires proportionally a lot more infrastructure (especially for
    digital, not so much for AMPS).

    And if it didn't really matter how many customers a company had, then
    Cingular wouldn't be so hot to acquire either T-Mobile's U.S. operations, or
    AT&T Wireless.

    There are other reasons that market share is important as well: Read:

    http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_vie
    w&newsId=20031203005437&newsLang=en

    "According to Wolff, the only other variable that is directly related to
    interest in switching is brand size. Among customers of the leading brands,
    interest in switching declines as market share increases. This could be a
    market factor moving the category toward consolidation."

    As to the winners and losers so far:

    http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=16092&type=news&bt=verizon

    Winners: Verizon, Nextel
    Losers: AT&T, Cingular
    Neutral: Sprint, T-Mobile

    > Albeit, you cannot fully analyze the impact that WNLP until it has been
    > implemented in the entire country. A majority of the U.S. (at least by
    > area) does not enjoy the luxury of WLNP. I know of many rural areas
    > where Verizon will lose most of its customers to AT&T in a certain market.


    Highly unlikely. If Verizon is that bad, and AT&T so good, in those areas
    then the majority of those customers will already have left Verizon despite
    having to change numbers. We've seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area,
    where Cingular experienced very high churn, including a lot of customers
    that simply paid the early termination fees. An article in the Oakland
    Tribune stated: "According to an internal Cingular memo "Profiling the
    Killer -- Churn" cited in papers filed last month by the <California> PUC's
    consumer protection and safety division, about 19.5 percent of Cingular
    customers ended contracts within 4 to 12 months of initiating service,
    despite having to pay early termination fees."

    But just for the record, what are those "many rural areas?"
  8. Aboutdakota

    Aboutdakota Guest

    Re: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

    > And if it didn't really matter how many customers a company had, then
    > Cingular wouldn't be so hot to acquire either T-Mobile's U.S. operations, or
    > AT&T Wireless.


    Wouldn't established spectrum be enticing for Cingular which is not
    spectrum rich like other carriers?

    > There are other reasons that market share is important as well: Read:
    >
    > http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_vie
    > w&newsId=20031203005437&newsLang=en


    "Part of the customer churn issue is attributed to differences in
    customer satisfaction," said Wolff. "Almost a third of Verizon Wireless
    customers say they are completely satisfied. Only 25 percent of the
    users of other major brands say they are completely satisfied."

    I would like to see a geographical representation of such. I would be
    willing to bet that the only reason Verizon Wireless is at the top is
    because a majority of its customers are in densely populated urban areas
    that are covered very well. I would be willing to bet that a majority
    of area of the VZW network covers consists of primarily of unhappy rural
    customers, where as Cingular and AT&T *could* be distributed, having a
    much larger "market share" of rural customers. Peiople can play with
    numbers.

    > "According to Wolff, the only other variable that is directly related to
    > interest in switching is brand size. Among customers of the leading brands,
    > interest in switching declines as market share increases. This could be a
    > market factor moving the category toward consolidation."
    >
    > As to the winners and losers so far:
    >
    > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=16092&type=news&bt=verizon


    "touted as net winners". There are no official figures of churn rates
    there. It does not say how many customers any company gained nor lost.
    It is not proof, it is speculation.

    > Winners: Verizon, Nextel
    > Losers: AT&T, Cingular
    > Neutral: Sprint, T-Mobile
    >
    >
    >>Albeit, you cannot fully analyze the impact that WNLP until it has been
    >>implemented in the entire country. A majority of the U.S. (at least by
    >>area) does not enjoy the luxury of WLNP. I know of many rural areas
    >>where Verizon will lose most of its customers to AT&T in a certain market.

    >
    >
    > Highly unlikely. If Verizon is that bad, and AT&T so good, in those areas
    > then the majority of those customers will already have left Verizon despite
    > having to change numbers. We've seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area,
    > where Cingular experienced very high churn, including a lot of customers
    > that simply paid the early termination fees. An article in the Oakland
    > Tribune stated: "According to an internal Cingular memo "Profiling the
    > Killer -- Churn" cited in papers filed last month by the <California> PUC's
    > consumer protection and safety division, about 19.5 percent of Cingular
    > customers ended contracts within 4 to 12 months of initiating service,
    > despite having to pay early termination fees."
    >
    > But just for the record, what are those "many rural areas?"


    Washington, Oregon, and Northern California area few places. Of course,
    adding coverage and then removing, then adding it again and removing it
    again doesn't give Verizon Wireless much credence in some of these areas
    (all coverage that has been disputed by customers has been on the
    America's Choice calling plan). Overall, Verizon Wireless will probably
    be a winner, because it does have the largest network. However, it
    noted that in many markets, Verizon Wireless will be a loser.

    To see Verizon's latest removal of coverage from the America's Choice
    plan, click or copy and paste these links:

    http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
    http://www.meetmyattorney.com/cellular/archives/000347.html
  9. Re: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

    "Aboutdakota" <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message
    news:3FD3C2DB.3000309@hot-mail.com...
    > > And if it didn't really matter how many customers a company had, then
    > > Cingular wouldn't be so hot to acquire either T-Mobile's U.S.

    operations, or
    > > AT&T Wireless.

    >
    > Wouldn't established spectrum be enticing for Cingular which is not
    > spectrum rich like other carriers?
    >
    > > There are other reasons that market share is important as well: Read:
    > >
    > >

    http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_vie
    > > w&newsId=20031203005437&newsLang=en

    >
    > "Part of the customer churn issue is attributed to differences in
    > customer satisfaction," said Wolff. "Almost a third of Verizon Wireless
    > customers say they are completely satisfied. Only 25 percent of the
    > users of other major brands say they are completely satisfied."


    33% versus 25% does not track with the churn percentages. Verizon has far
    less churn than any carrier other than Nextel, by a much larger margin than
    the customer satisfaction differences would cause. Of course customer
    satisfaction is very vague.

    > I would like to see a geographical representation of such. I would be
    > willing to bet that the only reason Verizon Wireless is at the top is
    > because a majority of its customers are in densely populated urban areas
    > that are covered very well.


    Duh. All the major carriers have a customer base with a majority of
    customers in urban areas. The reason Verizon is at the top for me, is
    because my phone works outside the urban areas too. This is not the case
    with Sprint PCS, Nextel, T-Mobile, Cingular GSM, or AT&T GSM. Furthermore,
    the problem with Sprint PCS, Nextel, AT&T GSM, and Cingular GSM in my urban
    area, is that the coverage isn't great even in the urban area. Cingular and
    T-Mobile are g-d awful, Sprint PCS has a great many gaps, and AT&T TDMA is
    deteriorating. It's not that Verizon is wonderful, and that's the
    competition is so poor.

    > I would be willing to bet that a majority
    > of area of the VZW network covers consists of primarily of unhappy rural
    > customers, where as Cingular and AT&T *could* be distributed, having a
    > much larger "market share" of rural customers. Peiople can play with
    > numbers.


    I don't see this being the case. In my area, the rural carriers are not VZW,
    Cingular, or AT&T. They are Edge Wireless, Golden State Cellular, etc. The
    national carriers aren't that interested in rural areas.

    > To see Verizon's latest removal of coverage from the America's Choice
    > plan, click or copy and paste these links:
    >
    > http://cell.uoregon.edu/loss_questionmark/
    > http://www.meetmyattorney.com/cellular/archives/000347.html


    I'm pissed about this too. But at least I have coverage and pay for a call.
    There's a lot of Northern California where this isn't an option if you're
    with Cingular or T-Mobile. I.e. Edge Wireless doesn't all Cingular and
    T-Mobile to roam on their GSM network; AT&T GSM can, because Edge is an AT&T
    affiliate. The affiliate system is clever. It lets smaller carriers, with
    higher costs, charge more to rural customers, while allowing both rural
    customers and urban customers ubiquitous coverage. Sprint is really big into
    affiliates, as is AT&T.
  10. Clay

    Clay Guest

    Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa & Missouri. WW is installing GSM 1900 &
    GSM 850 to satisfy their roaming agreements with T-Mobile, Cingulae & ATTWS.
    WW should have GSM across their entire footprint by 6/30/2004. Their 1x
    overlay should be complete by then also.



    "Aboutdakota" <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message
    news:3FD2D9D8.4040809@hot-mail.com...
    >
    >
    > Clay wrote:
    > > WW currenty has just over 100 towers in 5 midwest states live with GSM

    1900
    > > for ROAMING purposes only. WW has zero future plans to allow their own
    > > subscribers to use their GSM Network. FYI WW uses Cellular A side for

    all of
    > > their Cellular One markets and has 1 PCS market in Amarillo Texas

    operating
    > > under the Western Wireless brand name.

    >
    > Which 5 states?
    >
    > ==AD
    >
  11. d

    d Guest

    "Melee" <melee@optonline.net> wrote in message
    news:l240tv8nnljbv292cr842gf97f9do79ji2@4ax.com...
    > On 4 Dec 2003 10:32:24 -0800, whatawhiner@Mailinator.com (WAW) wrote:
    >
    > >I think that if anything happens, it will be a Cingular/AT&T Wireless
    > >deal. Here's what I see AT&T Wireless doing to make themselves
    > >attractive (off the top of my head):
    > >
    > >-Dropping their IT Payroll down to almost zilch. Brings up the
    > >profitability.
    > >-Selling off all overseas stakes in other providers. Ditto.
    > >-Recent focus in financials on profitability. They've moved from
    > >"here's how many new people we're getting" to "here's how much we're
    > >making per subscriber".
    > >
    > >I also found it interesting that Rogers in Canada will be dropping the
    > >"AT&T" from their name, again some time in mid '04.
    > >
    > >Finally, I think it would be easier to work around NTT's 16% stake in
    > >AWE than D. Telekom's hold on TMobile.

    >
    > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.




    You mean like Verizon wireline ?



    x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
    x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
    x-- Access to over 800 Gigs/Day - $8.95/Month
    x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
  12. David

    David Guest

    In article <3fdb6116$1_14@Opticon.100ProofNews.com>,
    "d" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

    > > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    > > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    > > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.



    They might make them sell off in areas where they didnt have 4
    competitors, but itsRepublicans running the FTC now, so any merger WILL
    go through.
  13. Cyrus Afzali

    Cyrus Afzali Guest

    On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:09:34 GMT, David <dlandsdowne@wsys.net> wrote:

    >In article <3fdb6116$1_14@Opticon.100ProofNews.com>,
    > "d" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
    >
    >> > The government would never allow AT&T and Cingular to merge. It would
    >> > destroy T-Mobile leaving them to brought out and then after, there
    >> > will be one GSM provider in the country - a monopoly.

    >
    >
    >They might make them sell off in areas where they didnt have 4
    >competitors, but itsRepublicans running the FTC now, so any merger WILL
    >go through.


    No matter who's in the White House, the notion that the FCC would
    derail consolidation in an industry with nine major players is
    ridiculous.

    People forget that until about 5 years ago or so, we had 2 commercial
    jet makers in the U.S. -- McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. The latter
    bought up the former with no antitrust difficulty, relatively
    speaking. That deal meant a lot more to the overall competitive
    landscape of that industry than any wireless merger would.
  14. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <9uJAb.3914$rP6.2852@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003
    17:31:49 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >.... We've seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area,
    >where Cingular experienced very high churn, including a lot of customers
    >that simply paid the early termination fees. An article in the Oakland
    >Tribune stated: "According to an internal Cingular memo "Profiling the
    >Killer -- Churn" cited in papers filed last month by the <California> PUC's
    >consumer protection and safety division, about 19.5 percent of Cingular
    >customers ended contracts within 4 to 12 months of initiating service,
    >despite having to pay early termination fees."


    That not "very high" level of churn isn't bad by industry standards.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  15. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <LRYAb.5501$rP6.2415@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> on Mon, 08 Dec 2003
    11:00:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >"Aboutdakota" <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message
    >news:3FD3C2DB.3000309@hot-mail.com...


    >http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_vie
    >> > w&newsId=20031203005437&newsLang=en

    >>
    >> "Part of the customer churn issue is attributed to differences in
    >> customer satisfaction," said Wolff. "Almost a third of Verizon Wireless
    >> customers say they are completely satisfied. Only 25 percent of the
    >> users of other major brands say they are completely satisfied."

    >
    >33% versus 25% does not track with the churn percentages. Verizon has far
    >less churn than any carrier other than Nextel, by a much larger margin than
    >the customer satisfaction differences would cause. ...


    The difference in churn is actually quite consistent with that difference in
    satisfaction.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  16. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Cingular Gets Approval for Acquisition Deal as Soon As 2004

    X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Lines: 32
    Message-ID: <xkMzb.744$XF6.18841@typhoon.sonic.net>
    Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:57:17 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.204.185.87
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
    X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1070567837 209.204.185.87 (Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:57:17 PST)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:57:17 PST
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:42982 alt.cellular.attws:18200 alt.cellular.cingular:25648 alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream:53132 alt.cellular.nextel:11978 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:126747 alt.cellular.verizon:129570

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <rMczb.41369$Ac3.10365@lakeread01> on Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:28:05 -0500, "Bill
    Roland" <donotspammeplease@cox.net> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    >news:lqczb.464$XF6.12002@typhoon.sonic.net...
    >>
    >> In <n7h2svgs7idt8j4eqlu2f8j9b63fqcuhfq@4ax.com> on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:38:31
    >> GMT, "mjohnson@att.net" <Michelle Johnson> wrote:


    >> >The "feds" also broke up AT&T back in '84. They wont allow a merger
    >> >between Cingular and AT&T, it would destroy T-Mobile.

    >>
    >> The "feds" don't care about T-Mobile -- it's not domestic.


    >What an idiotic statement. You think that because a German company owns
    >T-Mobile, that the government doesn't have a say-so in what they do or
    >doesn't care about what they are doing? ...


    Didn't say that -- read more carefully.


    p.s. Please place follow-up material below (not above) quoted material, as
    explained in Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
    <http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
    news.newusers.questions Moderation Board), unless a thread is already using
    top posting. (Mixing posting styles in a given thread is confusing.)

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  17. WAW

    WAW Guest

    I WIN!

    12 years later, and I came back to say I was absolutely right.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?