> Interestingly, Cingular was formed as a joint venture of SBC and
> BellSouth long before the two merged. SBC bought the old AT&T and
> assumed the AT&T name shortly before merging with BellSouth, but Cingular
> kept the name Cingular at BellSouth's urging (BS didn't want the company
> they half-owned to have the other half's name.) When AT&T (SBC) absorbed
> BellSouth, Cingular adopted the AT&T name.
>
It's all explained by Steven Colbert <http://www.glumbert.com/media/att>.
> i was referring to his going on and on about how wonderful t-mobile is
> 'in the areas people care about' (weasel words), despite numerous
> independent customer surveys showing that t-mobile coverage is very
> weak compared to other carriers.
What is rather ironic about what he did is that when you go into a
T-Mobile store they make a point about asking you where you need
coverage and check those places for you, and if they don't cover that
area they explain to you that they might not be the right choice for
you. That happened to me before T-Mobile covered my neighborhood. They
found no need to lie about coverage, but our favorite troll did not
share their view.
The merger would be a big help to customers of both companies in terms
of coverage and capacity, if not in terms of cost and customer service.
In urban areas T-Mobile's under-capacity towers would help relieve
network congestion for AT&T customers. In rural areas, AT&T's coverage
would provide coverage where T-Mobile customers currently have none.
AT&T is apparently very concerned that this deal won't pass anti-trust
scrutiny, judging from their statements trying to promote the deal as
being patriotic.3
> I know- I was just pointing out that until he switched from Cingular/AT&T
> to T-Mo, he waxed equally poetic about AT&T. And before he bought his
> Android phone, smartphones were too bulky and didn't do anything his
> RAZR, then Sony-Ericsson TM-506, couldn't do.
>
> Obviously the nation's best carrier/phone is whatever John is using at
> the moment!
He exhibited the same behavior with other, non-phone related, products
as well. We can be thankful that he seems to have finally realized that
it is not in his best interest to continue with that whole shtick as it
did not work out well.
> "Cingular" didn't have a name pre-Cingular, AFAIK.
Pretty sure you're right about that. My mom, a BellSouth customer,
simply had mobile service from BellSouth, there was no separate name for
the mobile phone business.
I thought the Cingular name was amusing because it was so close to the
asthma drug, Singulair, introduced in 1998, three years before Cingular
was formed.
Cingular got a bad reputation in the west because it was the old Pacific
Bell 1900 MHz GSM service, which was very poor in terms of coverage and
capacity.
Remember GAIT phones (AMPS, TDMA, GSM)? In Cingular's AMPS/TDMA regions
they were sold as a bridge product during the GSM transition. In the
western region Cingular never openly sold them. I contacted Cingular's
western regional headquarters to ask about GAIT phones, and received a
very nice e-mail that a) explained that GAIT phones would not solve
Cingular's network issues in California because even though they
supported TDMA, there was no roaming agreement with any TDMA carrier
(ATT Wireless), and b) the GAIT phone were only intended for use in
Cingular regions that were converting from TDMA/AMPS to GSM, and c) if
the phones did roam onto other TDMA/AMPS carriers there would be roaming
charges.
Cingular ended up paying large fines to California due to their service
issues. They fought it for a while, then decided to pay the fines, while
declaring that they had a strong case for appeal.
In article <4d88d284$0$10573$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
> The merger would be a big help to customers of both companies in terms
> of coverage and capacity, if not in terms of cost and customer service.
Coverage and capacity, quite possibly.
Cost and customer service, no. Nothing will change for current AT&T
customers, and T-Mo customers like myself will end up with higher prices
and the piss-poor customer service for which AT&T is infamous.
On 3/22/2011 12:08 PM, Cameo wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's all explained by Steven Colbert <http://www.glumbert.com/media/att>.
>
> That's hilarious! Any wonder that I lost track of all those name
> changes, too?
He forgot to mention that BellSouth used to be Southern Bell, which was
also part of AT&T.
> Pretty sure you're right about that. My mom, a BellSouth customer,
> simply had mobile service from BellSouth, there was no separate name for
> the mobile phone business.
I used to date a guy who worked for BellSouth Mobility in Georgia. So
there. harrumph
--
Hear Brenda's First Luv ! http://tr.im/2yad
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:w9GdnSfeVb8FBBXQnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>I only remember it as GTE Mobilnet.
They specifically operated their 1900Mhz properties under GTE "Wireless" for some reason.
Probably different roaming than their 800 Mobilnet - (because of the 1900Mhz)??
At 22 Mar 2011 09:47:00 -0700 SMS wrote:
\
>
> The merger would be a big help to customers of both companies in terms
> of coverage and capacity, if not in terms of cost and customer service.
> In urban areas T-Mobile's under-capacity towers would help relieve
> network congestion for AT&T customers. In rural areas, AT&T's coverage
> would provide coverage where T-Mobile customers currently have none.
Arguably it will help AT&T's customers more than T-Mobile's. T-Mobile's
spectrum is essentially a subset of AT&T's, so all AT&T gets is more
bandwidth, which helps with their congestion problems- more capacity in
the same footprint. Yea for AT&T!
T-Mo customers, however, get a larger coverage area, but at AT&T prices
with AT&T customer service. If we had wanted that, we'd have signed up
with AT&T in the first place!
> AT&T is apparently very concerned that this deal won't pass anti-trust
scrutiny, judging from their statements trying to promote the deal as
being patriotic.3
AT&T must be pretty sure the deal will pass muster: the deal has a
penalty clause that if it doesn't close, T-Mo gets $3 billion in cash,
AT&T's (currently unused) 1700MHz licenses, and a long-term roaming
agreement for AT&T service wherever T-Mo has no native coverage. THAT,
IMHO, is the best outcome for T-Mo customers. We'll still have T-Mo's
customer service, AT&T's larger footprint, the 40,000 T-Mo employees will
still have jobs, and T-Mo's Fatherland owners will have $3 billion in
cash to count, hopefully stalling them from figuring out who they want to
try to sell to next...
I doubt AT&T would agree to such a penalty clause if they thought there
was a snowball's chance in Hades the deal would be blocked by regulators.
In article <JL8ip.750178$De6.502885@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
NessNet says...
>
> "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:w9GdnSfeVb8FBBXQnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>
> >I only remember it as GTE Mobilnet.
>
> They specifically operated their 1900Mhz properties under GTE "Wireless" for some reason.
> Probably different roaming than their 800 Mobilnet - (because of the 1900Mhz)??
No, they were in Cleveland for years as GTE Mobilnet, eventually changed
to GTE Wireless, and Cleveland was 800 MHz...
"Todd Allcock" <elecconec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:imb8ce$7ag$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Arguably it will help AT&T's customers more than T-Mobile's.
> T-Mobile's
> spectrum is essentially a subset of AT&T's, so all AT&T gets is more
> bandwidth, which helps with their congestion problems- more capacity
> in
> the same footprint. Yea for AT&T!
That's not so, according to a Seattle Times article I've just read.
There are quite a few metro areas on the East where T-Mo has better
coverage than AT&T.
> I doubt AT&T would agree to such a penalty clause if they thought
> there
> was a snowball's chance in Hades the deal would be blocked by
> regulators.
The same article also mentioned the huge influence AT&T has in DC with
the politicians and even in the White House. AT&T is also unionized
while T-Mo is not. So the unions also support the merger. That may be
decisive in the Obama White House. On the other hand most consumer
organizations are against this deal. They say that even if the deal
passes, there would have to be some changes made in it first that favor
consumers. Should be interesting to watch.
In article <imbvfj$cb8$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Cameo
<cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> How to set up a Google voice number? Every time I try one I get the
> message
> "There are no Seattle city numbers available at this time." I get the
> same message even if I enter another city or area code. I do understand
> it cannot be an existing number, so I am not trying any.
pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
while though.
"Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8uo8auF2vuU1@mid.individual.net...
> May I suggest one way to limit minutes and SMS is to get a
> Google Voice number? I have had one for three years running, free, and
> it has worked very well. Free SMS, free incoming and outgoing control,
> voicemail transcriptions, etc......
How to set up a Google voice number? Every time I try one I get the
message
"There are no Seattle city numbers available at this time." I get the
same message even if I enter another city or area code. I do understand
it cannot be an existing number, so I am not trying any.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:59:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>> "Cingular" didn't have a name pre-Cingular, AFAIK.
>
>Pretty sure you're right about that. My mom, a BellSouth customer,
>simply had mobile service from BellSouth, there was no separate name for
>the mobile phone business.
I think what you're remembering is the fact that BellSouth allowed
their wireless service (which was indeed called BellSouth Mobility) to
be combined billed with your landline service. So it's probably true
she never got a bill from BellSouth Mobility per se, but if you
checked the detail section of the bill, you should have seen a line
item for them. I checked into BSM when it was first available here,
but coverage was "Sprint-like" at best, so I passed.
In article <imdbp9$qgh$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Cameo
<cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
> > while though.
>
> Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
> the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
> frequent contacts to call long distance.
most people can call long distance without additional charges.
> Why is Google promoting this
> anyway if they don't have enough numbers around?
they're not actively promoting it. what do you suggest they do?
On 3/23/2011 7:09 AM, The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:59:29 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> "Cingular" didn't have a name pre-Cingular, AFAIK.
>>
>> Pretty sure you're right about that. My mom, a BellSouth customer,
>> simply had mobile service from BellSouth, there was no separate name for
>> the mobile phone business.
>
> I think what you're remembering is the fact that BellSouth allowed
> their wireless service (which was indeed called BellSouth Mobility) to
> be combined billed with your landline service. So it's probably true
> she never got a bill from BellSouth Mobility per se, but if you
> checked the detail section of the bill, you should have seen a line
> item for them. I checked into BSM when it was first available here,
> but coverage was "Sprint-like" at best, so I passed.
In South Florida, BellSouth had one side of the 800 MHz spectrum, and
AT&T Wireless had the other side. Verizon was stuck at 1900 MHz (as of
course was Sprint and Voicestream).
It was amusing to me to be out in the Everglades, on my Verizon phone,
roaming onto the AT&T/Cingular AMPS network, since there was no digital
service. Of course AT&T/Cingular was all GSM by that time, and none of
their customer had any coverage at all (unless they were still using a
very old GAIT phone).
In article <slrniokd9d.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> > pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
> >> > while though.
> >>
> >> Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
> >> the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
> >> frequent contacts to call long distance.
> >
> > most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>
> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
> as landlines
mine is. maybe you should get a different handset or carrier. plus,
there are bundled long distance plans for landlines too.
In article <slrniokgdh.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> > most people can call long distance without additional charges.
> >>
> >> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
> >> as landlines
> >
> > mine is.
>
> No, it isn't
really? how is it you know how well my cellphone and landline work,
especially when you don't know what handsets i use (more than one) or
with which carriers (also more than one). you don't. you're talking out
your ***, again.
> > there are bundled long distance plans for landlines too.
>
> Then you are paying extra....
nope. it's a bundled plan of phone/internet/tv that includes long
distance and call waiting, 3-way calling, etc. there's no point in
removing any of those features, since the only lower priced option is
outside of the bundle and the services would end up costing *more*.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
> while though.
Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
frequent contacts to call long distance. Why is Google promoting this
anyway if they don't have enough numbers around?
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4d8a1a5f$0$10609$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Of course AT&T/Cingular was all GSM by that time, and none of their
> customer had any coverage at all (unless they were still using a very
> old GAIT phone).
nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:54:55 -0500]:
> In article <imdbp9$qgh$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Cameo
> <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
>> > while though.
>>
>> Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
>> the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
>> frequent contacts to call long distance.
>
> most people can call long distance without additional charges.
Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
as landlines
nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:35:09 -0500]:
> In article <slrniokd9d.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
>> >> > while though.
>> >>
>> >> Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
>> >> the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
>> >> frequent contacts to call long distance.
>> >
>> > most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>>
>> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
>> as landlines
>
> mine is.
No, it isn't
> there are bundled long distance plans for landlines too.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:53:37 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:
> nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:35:09 -0500]:
>> In article <slrniokd9d.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> > pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
>>> >> > while though.
>>> >>
>>> >> Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
>>> >> the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
>>> >> frequent contacts to call long distance.
>>> >
>>> > most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>>>
>>> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
>>> as landlines
>>
>> mine is.
>
> No, it isn't
Were you born a cretin or did you have to practice it daily? My cell
is as good as a landline and I know b/c I have both.
--
Troels Forchhammer
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid. Me? I go with fantasy books.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> most people can call long distance without additional charges.
I can, too. But that's not the reason I became interested in GV. I want
the capability to route incoming calls to either or both my landline and
cell phone, plus what GV can do with SMS.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:00:14 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:54:55 -0500]:
>> In article <imdbp9$qgh$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Cameo
>> <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> > pick another area or wait for a seattle number to open up. might be a
>>> > while though.
>>>
>>> Heck, I even tried Los Angeles and San Francisco with same result. On
>>> the other hand, I don't want to pick up an area code that would force my
>>> frequent contacts to call long distance.
>>
>> most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>
>Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
>as landlines
Then the calling party can get their own GV number and call through
that for free.
nospam wrote on [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:13:28 -0500]:
> In article <slrniokgdh.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > most people can call long distance without additional charges.
>> >>
>> >> Most people with cell phones. Cell phones still aren't as reliable or clear
>> >> as landlines
>> >
>> > mine is.
>>
>> No, it isn't
>
> really? how is it you know how well my cellphone and landline work,
> especially when you don't know what handsets i use (more than one) or
> with which carriers (also more than one). you don't. you're talking out
> your ***, again.
If you say so...
>> > there are bundled long distance plans for landlines too.
>>
>> Then you are paying extra....
>
> nope. it's a bundled plan of phone/internet/tv that includes long
> distance and call waiting, 3-way calling, etc. there's no point in
> removing any of those features, since the only lower priced option is
> outside of the bundle and the services would end up costing *more*.
With who? Most triple plays don't have landlines but have VOIP solutions.
>I can, too. But that's not the reason I became interested in GV. I want
>the capability to route incoming calls to either or both my landline and
>cell phone, plus what GV can do with SMS.
Re: T-Mobile selling off to AT&T 
Linear Mode
