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.
>>> *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.
And things then come full circle.
I started with AT&T Wireless,
which then became Cingular
and is now AT&T Mobility.
It's all to keep the sign-makers in business
to keep making new signs for the (remaining) stores :-)
>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
> Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular
> (SBC owned the other 60%.)
> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
> a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS,
> SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
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.
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:njjVj.81$hJ5.59@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> LDC wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company,
>>>> SBC
>>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
>>>> themselves
>>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
>>>> recognition.
>>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>>
>> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
>> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
>> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
>> owner of Cingular.
>
>
> Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold
> to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact
> that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on
back to "att"....Karma I suppose....
I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all
CAPS to lower case?
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:CIhVj.156$PE5.66@fe087.usenetserver.com:
> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was
> always a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T
> and BS, SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
>
>
A tangled web we weave.....(c;
BTW, the correct reference achronym for BS is actually B$, at least in
South Carolina....
Bell$outh....
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400 Pangloss 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...
>
> Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular (SBC
> owned the other 60%.)
>
> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
> a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, SBC
> was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
>
>
What ever happened to the laws that were supposedly violated causing the
breakup of the Bell system in the 80's?? All the "Baby Bells" seem to
be getting back together again. Were the laws repealed (never mind that
was rhetorical)
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:31:43 -0500, Janet Wilder
<kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400 Pangloss 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...
>>
>> Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular (SBC
>> owned the other 60%.)
>>
>> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
>> a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, SBC
>> was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
>>
>>
>What ever happened to the laws that were supposedly violated causing the
>breakup of the Bell system in the 80's?? All the "Baby Bells" seem to
>be getting back together again. Were the laws repealed (never mind that
>was rhetorical)
One big difference is the Baby Bell companies now face serious
competition in all areas of their operations. That wasn't the case at
the time of the United States vs. AT&T anti-trust suit.
At 10 May 2008 08:37:56 -0700 George Grapman wrote:
> > 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.
No, it wasn't. "Cingular" was created by the consolidation of regional
wireless carriers SBMS (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems), BellSouth
Mobility and PacTel. AT&T Wireless was a separate wireless company that
existed contemporaneously with those regional carriers and was once owned by,
then spun off of AT&T (the long distance company leftover from the Ma Bell
breakup) long before Cingular acquired it.
> 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.
Kinda sorta- Cingular was created as a seperate company owned by SBC (60%)
and BellSouth (40%.) Cingular bought AT&T Wireless (which was no longer
part of AT&T, but had a license to use the AT&T name, which expired when
Cingular bought them.)
When SBC later bought AT&T (the long distance company) they renamed
themselves AT&T, but didn't rename Cingular, due to BellSouth's objection.
When SBC (now calling themselves AT&T) bought BellSouth a year later, that
eliminated the objection to rename Cingular "AT&T Mobility."
Ironically, the old AT&T Wireless (which Cingular bought) was only months
away from having to rename themselves- their two-year license to use the
name AT&T was about to expire, and AT&T (the LD company) was about to
launch their own new wireless service as a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual
Network Operator.) SBC's purchase of AT&T scuttled that deal.
>Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular
>newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need
>for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd
>only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...)
>
For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the
name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality,
reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed
since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big
break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of
the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long
distance service.
Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term
experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer
service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did
know their stuff.
These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that
many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to
work the features on their own cell phones.
In article <17cmnlmmahub8.1tb7ygjt7qjql.dlg@40tude.net>,
CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:
> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap
> imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality
> degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on both the hardware and
> customer support side. We all know the state of the landline telephone
> service today. No wonder most young people don't even get a landline
> phone, what with the costs of owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes,
> and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for
> free.
>
> FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house
> phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls.
It's the arrogance that AT&T has that will kill them.
The landline providers could have offered us the same options that the
VoIP providers offer now--and could have done it 15 years ago. The
landline providers still have their heads in the sand with respect to
competition.
A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless
Linear Mode
