In article <jackzwick-2ECFEC.17584329122006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>, jackzwick@yahoo.com says...
> as part of that they say the Cingular name will go away,
> to be replaced by AT&T
>
Not that my humble opinion is worth anything but I think changing (back)
to AT&T is *stupid* (but then IMO so is not offering TDMA or GAIT with
so much of the country still not GSM but that's another story). Couldn't
they use "AT&T Cingular" or something?
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <jackzwick-2ECFEC.17584329122006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>,
> jackzwick@yahoo.com says...
>> as part of that they say the Cingular name will go away,
>> to be replaced by AT&T
>>
> Not that my humble opinion is worth anything but I think changing (back)
> to AT&T is *stupid* (but then IMO so is not offering TDMA or GAIT with
> so much of the country still not GSM but that's another story). Couldn't
> they use "AT&T Cingular" or something?
Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is worth
the change.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:03:13 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
: On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
: <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
:
: >Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is worth
: >the change.
:
:
: 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
"Cingular" was a sappy name from the beginning. But amongst those of a certain
age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark memories of the hated "Ma Bell". It's as
though George W. Bush tried to refurbish his reputation by calling himself
"Richard Milhous Cheney".
Anyway, the natural progression from "Cingular", now that they've swallowed
another company, would be "Doubular".
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ur6ep295m3ikjhgs3cnfspv3pgtodfqolh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:03:13 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> : On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
> : <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
> :
> : >Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is
> worth
> : >the change.
> :
> :
> : 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
>
> "Cingular" was a sappy name from the beginning. But amongst those of a
> certain
> age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark memories of the hated "Ma Bell".
> It's as
> though George W. Bush tried to refurbish his reputation by calling himself
> "Richard Milhous Cheney".
>
> Anyway, the natural progression from "Cingular", now that they've
> swallowed
> another company, would be "Doubular".
>
> Bob
>> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
>> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?
"rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net> writes:
> >> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
> >> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
>
> Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated
> "Ma Bell"?
Can't say exactly, but I can say mid 30's qualifies. I recall when ma
Bell controlled things with an expensive iron fist right down to
renting all your phones to you. You know the ones with the actualy
bell ringers that Gen X and beyond probably only know from the Matrix
movies.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:19:54 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:03:13 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>: On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
>: <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>:
>: >Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is worth
>: >the change.
>:
>:
>: 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
>
>"Cingular" was a sappy name from the beginning. But amongst those of a certain
>age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark memories of the hated "Ma Bell". It's as
>though George W. Bush tried to refurbish his reputation by calling himself
>"Richard Milhous Cheney".
>
>Anyway, the natural progression from "Cingular", now that they've swallowed
>another company, would be "Doubular".
>
>Bob
Todd H. wrote:
> "rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net> writes:
>>>> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
>>>> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
>> Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated
>> "Ma Bell"?
>
> Can't say exactly, but I can say mid 30's qualifies. I recall when ma
> Bell controlled things with an expensive iron fist right down to
> renting all your phones to you. You know the ones with the actualy
> bell ringers that Gen X and beyond probably only know from the Matrix
> movies.
>
That would be anyone who has fond personal memories of the Good Old
Days, no? Who's Matrix?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:36:15 -0500, "rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net>
wrote:
: "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
: news:ur6ep295m3ikjhgs3cnfspv3pgtodfqolh@4ax.com...
: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:03:13 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
: > : On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
: > : <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : >Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is
: > worth
: > : >the change.
: > :
: > :
: > : 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
: >
: > "Cingular" was a sappy name from the beginning. But amongst those of a
: > certain
: > age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark memories of the hated "Ma Bell".
: > It's as
: > though George W. Bush tried to refurbish his reputation by calling himself
: > "Richard Milhous Cheney".
: >
: > Anyway, the natural progression from "Cingular", now that they've
: > swallowed
: > another company, would be "Doubular".
: >
: > Bob
:
:
: >> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
: >> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
:
: Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?
In my case, 69. But you could be a lot younger. It was sometime in the 1970s
before a customer in the U.S. was explicitly allowed to attach his own phone
to the public network. Lots of us did it, of course, but we could have lost
our phone service if The Phone Company found out.
See if you can find the movie "The President's Analyst". It offers some
additional perspective. ;^)
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:36:15 -0500, "rjdriver" <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net>
> wrote:
> : "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
> : news:ur6ep295m3ikjhgs3cnfspv3pgtodfqolh@4ax.com...
> : > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:03:13 -0600, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> : > : On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
> : > : <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is
> : > worth
> : > : >the change.
> : > :
> : > :
> : > : 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
> : >
> : > "Cingular" was a sappy name from the beginning. But amongst those of a
> : > certain
> : > age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark memories of the hated "Ma Bell".
> : > It's as
> : > though George W. Bush tried to refurbish his reputation by calling himself
> : > "Richard Milhous Cheney".
> : >
> : > Anyway, the natural progression from "Cingular", now that they've
> : > swallowed
> : > another company, would be "Doubular".
> : >
> : > Bob
> :
> :
> : >> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
> : >> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
> :
> : Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?
>
> In my case, 69. But you could be a lot younger. It was sometime in the 1970s
> before a customer in the U.S. was explicitly allowed to attach his own phone
> to the public network. Lots of us did it, of course, but we could have lost
> our phone service if The Phone Company found out.
>
> See if you can find the movie "The President's Analyst". It offers some
> additional perspective. ;^)
>
> Bob
On 2006-12-31, rjdriver <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net> wrote:
> "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
>>> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
>>> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
>
> Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?
I got a job with (pre-Worldcom) MCI in 1994, and at the orientation
presentation on the first day of work they made us watch a movie about
how terrible Ma Bell was. They weren't fond of the Baby Bell RBOCs either.
All I remember about the movie was a group of little old ladies hitting
people with their umbrellas.
Between that and the dress code (even engineers had to wear ties??)
I always felt a bit out of place working there.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2006-12-31, rjdriver <rjdriversNOSPAM@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
>>>> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
>>>> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
>> Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?
>
> I got a job with (pre-Worldcom) MCI in 1994, and at the orientation
> presentation on the first day of work they made us watch a movie about
> how terrible Ma Bell was. They weren't fond of the Baby Bell RBOCs either.
> All I remember about the movie was a group of little old ladies hitting
> people with their umbrellas.
>
> Between that and the dress code (even engineers had to wear ties??)
> I always felt a bit out of place working there.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
Somehow, being compelled to watch an corporate orientation film of
little old ladies beating other people with umbrellas *and* having to
wear typical office garb seems to fit into Ebbers' accounting models and
justifiable end. Questions can be referred to the penitentiary in
Mississippi c/o the Fabulous Five Finger Discount Team.
>
>>> But amongst those of a certain age, the name "AT&T" conjures up dark
>>> memories of the hated "Ma Bell". <<
>
> Hated "Ma Bell"? What would that certain age be that hated "Ma Bell"?
>
>
> Bob
>
>
What was hated was the pricing and lack of innovation. The pricing was
deemed necessary for universal service and lack of innovation because
they had a monopoly. Service and reliability were second to none. A
college room mate when to London on spring break in the 1970's.
Previously he hated Ma Bell because of the pricing but after visiting
London with they poor quality and reliability of calls and long waits
for new phone service (weeks to months) he said he would never complain
about Ma Bell again.
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:19:23 -0600, decaturtxcowboy
> <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Industry trade journals say the global name recognition of AT&T is worth
>> the change.
>
>
> 99% of Cingular's business is stateside.
As obvious as that is, apparently that was irrelevant to their decision
when compared to brand recognition.
Dave wrote:
> Previously he hated Ma Bell because of the pricing but after visiting
> London with they poor quality and reliability of calls and long waits
> for new phone service (weeks to months) he said he would never complain
> about Ma Bell again.
It was like thirty years ago someone told me the wait for new phone service
in Italy was several years.
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:39:37 -0500, Todd H. wrote
> (in article <84wt48znjq.fsf@ripco.com>):
>
> > Can't say exactly, but I can say mid 30's qualifies. I recall when ma
> > Bell controlled things with an expensive iron fist right down to
> > renting all your phones to you. You know the ones with the actualy
> > bell ringers that Gen X and beyond probably only know from the Matrix
> > movies.
>
> Mid 30's? I think you need to add a decade or so on that. :-)
Perhaps I started hating utility monopolies a decade before you did. :-)
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article
> <jackzwick-2ECFEC.17584329122006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>,
> jackzwick@yahoo.com says...
>> as part of that they say the Cingular name will go away,
>> to be replaced by AT&T
>>
<snip> Couldn't they use "AT&T Cingular" or something?
As someone from southern California I'd have to say "NO!" only becuase I
lived thru "Robinsons May" (after "Robinsons" and "May Company" stores
merged.) Now they're Macy's though they should be May Co. because it's the
main company and it's a SoCal name.
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:38:55 -0500, Todd H. wrote
> (in article <841wmeejf4.fsf@ripco.com>):
>
> > SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:39:37 -0500, Todd H. wrote
> >> (in article <84wt48znjq.fsf@ripco.com>):
> >>
> >>> Can't say exactly, but I can say mid 30's qualifies. I recall when ma
> >>> Bell controlled things with an expensive iron fist right down to
> >>> renting all your phones to you. You know the ones with the actualy
> >>> bell ringers that Gen X and beyond probably only know from the Matrix
> >>> movies.
> >>
> >> Mid 30's? I think you need to add a decade or so on that. :-)
> >
> > Perhaps I started hating utility monopolies a decade before you did. :-)
> >
> > --
> > Todd H.
> > http://www.toddh.net/
>
> I'd say since the lawsuit to break them up was initiated in 1974.
> (Of course it wasn't implemented until '84)
Yeah.... I've been a consumer advocate sort since well before they
gave me a driver's license. Siblings tell me I moved a phone outlet
from one unused room to my own before I finished middle school. They
say it was an unhealthy byproduct of early exposure to electrical
engineers in the family. :-)
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <jackzwick-2ECFEC.17584329122006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>,
> jackzwick@yahoo.com says...
>> as part of that they say the Cingular name will go away,
>> to be replaced by AT&T
>>
> Not that my humble opinion is worth anything but I think changing (back)
> to AT&T is *stupid* (but then IMO so is not offering TDMA or GAIT with
> so much of the country still not GSM but that's another story). Couldn't
> they use "AT&T Cingular" or something?
Perhaps they see the name change as a way of a fresh start, given their
poor showing in surveys on quality and service.
AT&T Wireless once had an excellent reputation, it was the investment by
NTT Docomo, and the accompanying mandate to migrate to GSM (rather than
CDMA as they had originally planned), that caused their decline after
the horribly botched TDMA to GSM conversion.
"By the end of 1997, AT&T Wireless had become by far the nation's
largest cellular provider. It led the industry, creating the first
national coverage plan with no roaming or long-distance fees.
The company received numerous awards for excellent service, and by 2000
several publications, including Forbes and PC Magazine, had named it the
country's best wireless network."
Maybe Cingular is hoping to recreate the AT&T brand as a premium brand.
Jud Hardcastle wrote:
> In article <jackzwick-2ECFEC.17584329122006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>,
> jackzwick@yahoo.com says...
>> as part of that they say the Cingular name will go away,
>> to be replaced by AT&T
>>
> Not that my humble opinion is worth anything but I think changing (back)
> to AT&T is *stupid* (but then IMO so is not offering TDMA or GAIT with
> so much of the country still not GSM but that's another story). Couldn't
> they use "AT&T Cingular" or something?
I think that the TDMA portion of GAIT has ceased to be necessary, but
there are still a lot of areas where AMPS capability is very useful.
Last week I was in the Florida Everglades, happily roaming onto
Cingular's AMPS network from my Verizon phone, while Cingular's own GSM
customers had no coverage at all.
Yesterday I was in Yosemite, and large areas of the park, and the
northern and central roads into the park (140 & 120), have AMPS coverage
from Golden State Cellular, while only a small portion (Yosemite Valley)
has digital coverage on GSM or CDMA.
You can be sure that Cingular will turn of their AMPS networks the
instant they are legally allowed to do so, since these networks are
helping their competitors provide superior coverage, especially in the
few areas where Cingular owns both the A & B side legacy networks (such
as in South Florida). However the smaller carriers, such as Golden State
Cellular, which cover large, sparsely populated, areas will not turn off
AMPS until they are able to replace the AMPS coverage with digital.
This really is a disappointment to me. I had AT&T back when I had a
TDMA phone, and I liked their service, and at the time I liked the
name. However, now that AT&T and Cingular merged, I was getting quite
used to the Cingular name. It just fits for some reason.
Maybe the statistics show that AT&T is a more "marketable" name, but
the Cingular name has come to stick. Now Cingular even has phones that
they call their own. Cingular 8525 for example. How are they going to
pull that off with the rebranding? It just doesn't sound good.
Looks like they're just being greedy and want to swallow out all of the
old names, and keep the AT&T the *only* brand. Really disappointing.
Drew wrote:
> This really is a disappointment to me. I had AT&T back when I had a
> TDMA phone, and I liked their service, and at the time I liked the
> name. However, now that AT&T and Cingular merged, I was getting quite
> used to the Cingular name. It just fits for some reason.
>
> Maybe the statistics show that AT&T is a more "marketable" name, but
> the Cingular name has come to stick. Now Cingular even has phones that
> they call their own. Cingular 8525 for example. How are they going to
> pull that off with the rebranding? It just doesn't sound good.
>
> Looks like they're just being greedy and want to swallow out all of the
> old names, and keep the AT&T the *only* brand. Really disappointing.
The Cingular name has some problems.
First, it sounds too much like the asthma medication Singulair.
Second, as a carrier, Cingular has a very poor reputation for quality
and customer service as evidenced by surveys by J.D. Power, Yankee
Group, and Consumer Reports. In the western region, where Cingular
started out as a 1900 MHz GSM-only carrier, and never had a TDMA
network, the reputation is absolutely horrible.
No doubt the AT&T executives believe that the Cingular name has too much
baggage associated with it, and that a name change will held shed that
baggage.
Personally I doubt the wisdom of the name change. They should fix the
problems that cause them to get the poor ratings, rather than spending
money on re-branding. But then I guess the AT&T execs know better than
any of us.
The AT&T name is still considered a bag of shit.
AT&T has always been known as a back-stabbing, god-awful company to do
business with on ALL fronts.
The merger of AT&T and Cingular has been compared to "Dumb & Dumber"
AT&T Wireless reputation was pretty much in the dumper when they were
bought out by Cingular. AT&& Wireless knew they were being sold and
quality went way down and they sustained their customer base by giving
away the store as far as additional minutes to keep customers from leaving.
SMS wrote:
> Drew wrote:
>> This really is a disappointment to me. I had AT&T back when I had a
>> TDMA phone, and I liked their service, and at the time I liked the
>> name. However, now that AT&T and Cingular merged, I was getting quite
>> used to the Cingular name. It just fits for some reason.
>>
>> Maybe the statistics show that AT&T is a more "marketable" name, but
>> the Cingular name has come to stick. Now Cingular even has phones that
>> they call their own. Cingular 8525 for example. How are they going to
>> pull that off with the rebranding? It just doesn't sound good.
>>
>> Looks like they're just being greedy and want to swallow out all of the
>> old names, and keep the AT&T the *only* brand. Really disappointing.
>
> The Cingular name has some problems.
>
> First, it sounds too much like the asthma medication Singulair.
>
> Second, as a carrier, Cingular has a very poor reputation for quality
> and customer service as evidenced by surveys by J.D. Power, Yankee
> Group, and Consumer Reports. In the western region, where Cingular
> started out as a 1900 MHz GSM-only carrier, and never had a TDMA
> network, the reputation is absolutely horrible.
>
> No doubt the AT&T executives believe that the Cingular name has too much
> baggage associated with it, and that a name change will held shed that
> baggage.
>
> Personally I doubt the wisdom of the name change. They should fix the
> problems that cause them to get the poor ratings, rather than spending
> money on re-branding. But then I guess the AT&T execs know better than
> any of us.
Dave wrote:
> AT&T Wireless reputation was pretty much in the dumper when they were
> bought out by Cingular. AT&& Wireless knew they were being sold and
> quality went way down and they sustained their customer base by giving
> away the store as far as additional minutes to keep customers from leaving.
True, but non-AT&T Wireless customers, about 75% of total subscribers,
don't have that experience to remember. AT&T Wireless customers that
left prior to the plunge in quality and service still have good memories
of AT&T. I recall when my wife's purse was stolen with her AT&T Wireless
phone. They sent out a new handset, and didn't even charge us for it,
though we had no insurance on the phone, and though her rate plan was a
very inexpensive plan ($10 per month and 25¢ per minute).
AT&T had excellent customer service and the best rate plans for quite a
few years. Since I was long gone from AT&T by the time they went into
the dumper, I only know of the issues from disgruntled customers.
In my area, the corporate customers mostly moved to Verizon when AT&T
began to deteriorate. At the time there was really no other option as
Cingular was just starting operations in my area and their network was
very poor (a 1900 MHz only GSM network), and Sprint has always had poor
coverage in my area.
> I think many customers have nostalgic feelings toward AT&T.
Or at least that's what the AT&T execs hope.
Consumers have very negative feelings toward AT&T's long distance
services, which engaged in very deceptive marketing for many years.
Remember all those promises of multiple monthly credits to your phone
bill if you agreed to switch to AT&T LD. The credits usually ended up to
be far less than the telemarketer promised, but of course since you had
no written agreement you were screwed.
Personally, I had only good experiences with AT&T Wireless, but I left
prior to their decline. If someone has been living in a cave, and
doesn't realize that the new AT&T Wireless is simply Cingular, then they
may mistakenly switch to it, expecting more than they're going to get.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:459e30a5$0$68960$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
<snip>
>
> Personally, I had only good experiences with AT&T Wireless, but I
> left prior to their decline. If someone has been living in a cave,
> and doesn't realize that the new AT&T Wireless is simply Cingular,
> then they may mistakenly switch to it, expecting more than they're
> going to get.
We stuck with AT&T to the end - we never had any problems.. When we
renewed our service, we stuck with Cingular, thinking that since they
had taken over AT&T we wouldn't be considered a new customer. WRONG!
We had to pay an activation fee and didn't have an option for a free
upgrade as we had in the past with AT&T. Left a bitter taste in our
mouth.
Cingluar is rated 3rd in our area by Consumer Reports. We thought
about going with T-Mobile (#1 in our area) however their packages don't
save us any $$ compared to Cingular, the activation fee is greater than
what Cingular charged and none of the phones got me excited enough to
switch. Haven't looked at Verizon and probably will just stay with
Cingular. Their customer service has been decent, which is good. I
reported a dropped call area and that was quickly fixed.
As for the Cingular stores, I've found the quality of employees to be
variable between stores. One of the stores is manned by a bunch of
disinterested "kids" (one day when I walked in the store, they were
pushing each other around the store in the office chairs!), another
store is manned by some very knowledegable adults.
I think the break-up of AT&T was such a disaster and big mistake!!
Cingular to change name 
Linear Mode
