On May 10, 11:38 am, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist> wrote:
> "George Grapman" <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:njjVj.81$hJ5.59@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > LDC wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company,
> >>>> SBC
> >>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
> >>>> themselves
> >>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
> >>>> recognition.
> >>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>
> >> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
> >> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
> >> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
> >> owner of Cingular.
>
> > Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold
> > to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact
> > that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
>
> Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on
> back to "att"....Karma I suppose....
>
> I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all
> CAPS to lower case?
Except now the HQ is in Texas, and we all know how well Texans can
manage large organizations...hint $4 gas...JG
At 14 May 2008 14:32:30 -0700 William Souden wrote:
> One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem
> you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring
> or outside they fixed it.
True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our
own personal repairman on standby.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 14 May 2008 14:32:30 -0700 William Souden wrote:
>
>> One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem
>> you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring
>> or outside they fixed it.
>
> True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our
> own personal repairman on standby.
>
>
>
Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone
company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension
phone on the same line. Now that I think of it the cable people used to
charge for a second tv getting basic cable. When they were forced to
stop the practice they warned people about imaginary hazards of hooking
up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the
cabling).
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-05-14, William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
> Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone
> company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension
> phone on the same line. Now that I think of it the cable people used to
> charge for a second tv getting basic cable. When they were forced to
> stop the practice they warned people about imaginary hazards of hooking
> up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the
> cabling).
And for rental of extra converter boxes and remotes (I think our extra box is
$5/month and the extra remote is $2).
Steve Sobol wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
> On 2008-05-14, William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone
>> company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension
>> phone on the same line. Now that I think of it the cable people used to
>> charge for a second tv getting basic cable. When they were forced to
>> stop the practice they warned people about imaginary hazards of hooking
>> up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the
>> cabling).
>
> And for rental of extra converter boxes and remotes (I think our extra box is
> $5/month and the extra remote is $2).
>
You can make a weak argument for the equipment rental but none for
just adding another tv for basic cable. Same for charging a monthly fee
for an extension phone.
At 14 May 2008 16:28:09 -0700 William Souden wrote:
> Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone
> company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension
> phone on the same line.
Yeah, I remember as a kid we had one phone that rang and two extensions
that didn't (that we weren't paying for.) My Dad worked for the local gas
company and he and his co-workers would pinch any phones left behind when
they were sent to shut off the gas at abandoned apartments (if they beat
the phone company guys there, of course.) Then they'd disconnect the
ringers so the phone company wouldn't detect the extra load from the
extension phones.
I remember having a heck of a time convincing my folks when I was a
teenager in the 80's that you were allowed to own phones and it was okay to
let me reconnect the ringers! (And an ever bigger sell-job to get them to
turn in the stupid banana-yellow wallphone they'd been renting since the
Nixon administration!)
> Now that I think of it the cable people used to charge for a second
> tv getting basic cable.
My cable co was even worse. In addition to the $6/month extra outlet, we
signed up for "cable radio" for $2/month extra when the cable company first
came to town back when I was 12 or 13 years old. (They rebroadcast local
FM stations, as well as MTV's and HBO's audio in stereo, on unused radio
frequencies for people in bad reception areas.) The installer put a $2
cable splitter on the line and was about to run a wire to the stereo's FM
antenna terminals. I told my parents to tell the installer they changed
their minds and didn't want the radio service, and we ran to Radio Shack
later and bought the necessary parts to "roll our own." (We did get a
knock on the door several months later when they detected a "leak" caused
by my jury-rigged extra-outlet cable run to my brother's bedroom. As a
precocious teen, no one had told me I wasn't supposed to use a leftover
piece of 300-Ohm antenna twin-lead wire with coax adapters on the ends as a
cable line! ;-)
> When they were forced to stop the practice they warned people about
> imaginary hazards of hooking up a second tv on your own (they are
> allowed to charge for doing the cabling).
And for box rental, of course- back in the good old days, cable-ready TVs
were still a rarity. I remember trolling garage sales and flea markets
for old converters because my folks didn't want to rent any additional
boxes at $6/month. For a buck each out of a flea market junk box I scored
an old cable-to-UHF converter (upconverted the cable band to UHF channels)
and a very old 36-channel converter with a "remote"- a 12-button panel
(with a three-position switch to select which group of 12 channels you
wanted to select from) on a 20' cord that connected to the actual converter
hooked to the TV!
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-05-15, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> And for box rental, of course- back in the good old days, cable-ready TVs
> were still a rarity.
We still rent two boxes for our two cable-ready TV's because we get premium
channels and occasionally watch pay-per-view. However, I don't rent a cable
modem (I own one that is DOCSIS compliant), and I'm eventually going to get
a couple universal remotes and give the other ones back to the cable company
and stop paying monthly for them.
In article <0d8bfaa2-c90e-46e4-b8b6-0b068338ef24
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jgrove24@hotmail.com says...
> On May 10, 11:38 am, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist> wrote:
> > "George Grapman" <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:njjVj.81$hJ5.59@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > LDC wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company,
> > >>>> SBC
> > >>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
> > >>>> themselves
> > >>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
> > >>>> recognition.
> > >>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
> >
> > >> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
> > >> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
> > >> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
> > >> owner of Cingular.
> >
> > > Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold
> > > to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact
> > > that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
> >
> > Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on
> > back to "att"....Karma I suppose....
> >
> > I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all
> > CAPS to lower case?
>
> Except now the HQ is in Texas, and we all know how well Texans can
> manage large organizations...hint $4 gas...JG
>
Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless 
Linear Mode
