Transition from alt.cellular.cingular to alt.cellular.attws

With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of
calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the
alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws group.

I suggest the following transition strategy:

1. New threads should be posted to both alt.cellular.cingular and
alt.cellular.attws, until June 30th 2007.

2. Follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on
alt.cellular.cingular should add alt.cellular.attws, but keep
alt.cellular.cingular until June 30th 2007.

3. Beginning July 1st 2007, new threads should be posted only to
alt.cellular.attws.

4. Beginning July 1st 2007, follow-up posts to threads that are only
posted on alt.cellular.cingular, should remove alt.cellular.cingular,
and add alt.cellular.attws.

I think that this will work well. Look at how quickly
alt.cellular.t-mobile replaced alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream.
The latter group now has very, very, few postings.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45afa490$0$68972$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of
> calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the
> alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws
> group.
>
> I suggest the following transition strategy:
>
> 1. New threads should be posted to both alt.cellular.cingular and
> alt.cellular.attws, until June 30th 2007.
>
> 2. Follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on
> alt.cellular.cingular should add alt.cellular.attws, but keep
> alt.cellular.cingular until June 30th 2007.
>
> 3. Beginning July 1st 2007, new threads should be posted only to
> alt.cellular.attws.
>
> 4. Beginning July 1st 2007, follow-up posts to threads that are only
> posted on alt.cellular.cingular, should remove alt.cellular.cingular, and
> add alt.cellular.attws.
>
> I think that this will work well. Look at how quickly
> alt.cellular.t-mobile replaced alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream. The
> latter group now has very, very, few postings.
>
And what about Father John's charter?
Oh, yeah. I forget. The charter is not valid
Besides. The charter didn't post this month.



--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW is of no use to me any longer. After 13 plus years
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006

At 18 Jan 2007 08:47:11 -0800 SMS wrote:
> With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor
> of calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of
> the alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the
> alt.cellular.attws group.
>
> I suggest the following transition strategy:

<snip>

Excellent idea. John should include this info in the Charter... ;-)


Seriously, I think your idea is excellent, provided there is no
"alt.cellular.att" group created anytime soon- technically the "service
formerly known as Cingular" won't be called AT&T Wireless- just AT&T.

As far as the T-Mo group goes, it's adoption would be even more complete
if Google would get off it's arse and add it to Google groups!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hopefully Mr Navas will update the Charter to state this information.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:45b01d85$0$4868$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> At 18 Jan 2007 08:47:11 -0800 SMS wrote:
>> With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor
>> of calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of
>> the alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the
>> alt.cellular.attws group.
>>
>> I suggest the following transition strategy:
>
> <snip>
>
> Excellent idea. John should include this info in the Charter... ;-)
>
>
> Seriously, I think your idea is excellent, provided there is no
> "alt.cellular.att" group created anytime soon- technically the "service
> formerly known as Cingular" won't be called AT&T Wireless- just AT&T.
>
> As far as the T-Mo group goes, it's adoption would be even more complete
> if Google would get off it's arse and add it to Google groups!
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

Andy S wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45afa490$0$68972$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of
>> calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the
>> alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws
>> group.
>>
>> I suggest the following transition strategy:
>>
>> 1. New threads should be posted to both alt.cellular.cingular and
>> alt.cellular.attws, until June 30th 2007.
>>
>> 2. Follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on
>> alt.cellular.cingular should add alt.cellular.attws, but keep
>> alt.cellular.cingular until June 30th 2007.
>>
>> 3. Beginning July 1st 2007, new threads should be posted only to
>> alt.cellular.attws.
>>
>> 4. Beginning July 1st 2007, follow-up posts to threads that are only
>> posted on alt.cellular.cingular, should remove alt.cellular.cingular, and
>> add alt.cellular.attws.
>>
>> I think that this will work well. Look at how quickly
>> alt.cellular.t-mobile replaced alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream. The
>> latter group now has very, very, few postings.
>>
> And what about Father John's charter?
> Oh, yeah. I forget. The charter is not valid
> Besides. The charter didn't post this month.
>
>
>


We must right this egregious wrong. We must amend the Patriot Act and
collect our retribution! Bush, save us all!!!

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bush will save us. We just have to trust him and give him time to get the
job done. :-)

>
> We must right this egregious wrong. We must amend the Patriot Act and
> collect our retribution! Bush, save us all!!!
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:47:11 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of
>calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the
>alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws group.
>
>I suggest the following transition strategy:
>
>1. New threads should be posted to both alt.cellular.cingular and
>alt.cellular.attws, until June 30th 2007.
>
>2. Follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on
>alt.cellular.cingular should add alt.cellular.attws, but keep
>alt.cellular.cingular until June 30th 2007.
>
>3. Beginning July 1st 2007, new threads should be posted only to
>alt.cellular.attws.
>
>4. Beginning July 1st 2007, follow-up posts to threads that are only
>posted on alt.cellular.cingular, should remove alt.cellular.cingular,
>and add alt.cellular.attws.
>
>I think that this will work well. Look at how quickly
>alt.cellular.t-mobile replaced alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream.
>The latter group now has very, very, few postings.


Will the new moniker for AT&T's wireless be ATTWS?, or just AT&T,
in which case ATTWS would be just as incorrect as a Cingular labeled
group. Isn't there still a Voicestream group ?? YES THERE IS.

Sorry SBC is confusing you.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 18 Jan 2007 08:47:11 -0800 SMS wrote:
>> With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor
>> of calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of
>> the alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the
>> alt.cellular.attws group.
>>
>> I suggest the following transition strategy:
>
> <snip>
>
> Excellent idea. John should include this info in the Charter... ;-)
>
>
> Seriously, I think your idea is excellent, provided there is no
> "alt.cellular.att" group created anytime soon- technically the "service
> formerly known as Cingular" won't be called AT&T Wireless- just AT&T.

They're just calling it "Wireless service from AT&T." I think attws is
close enough.

> As far as the T-Mo group goes, it's adoption would be even more complete
> if Google would get off it's arse and add it to Google groups!

I've requested it, for all the good it's done.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:12:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45b0fbf8$0$68981$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>> As far as the T-Mo group goes, it's adoption would be even more complete
>> if Google would get off it's arse and add it to Google groups!
>
>I've requested it, for all the good it's done.

Then you didn't go about it the right way. Google has been responsive
on valid groups I've requested.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

The company may not be called "at&t wireless" but for the sake of thise
group it can denote the wireless portion of at&t to keep it from dirgressing
into discussion about the other portions of their business such as
landlines.

I say keep the attws to keep the discussion wireless related.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-733F8F.17593719012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <45afa490$0$68972$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of
>> calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the
>> alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws
>> group.
>
> Why?
>
> attws stands for AT&T Wireless.
>
> AT&T Wireless doesn't exist.
>
> Does AT&T intend to brand their cellular service AT&T Wireless? If not,
> this is a silly proposal.
>
> And it's a silly proposal UNTIL they brand it AT&T Wireless.
>