Cingular Users, You Are AT&T Again

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500501.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500501.html</a><br /><br />Well, you'll be AT&amp;T Wireless again soon anyway. It seems that SBC Communications, which recently purchased AT&amp;T and then renamed itself AT&amp;T, is buying Bell South. SBC, which is a combination of several baby bells from AT&amp;T's government mandated breakup in the 80's, and Bell South, which is the <i>last</i> baby bell standing that hasn't been bought out or undergone radical changes, have been partners in Cingular Wireless. Cingular Wireless purchased AT&amp;T Wireless last year. Well, now it is <i><b>all</b></i> AT&amp;T again. 8O You can see more about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bells">whole ordeal here</a>.<br /><br /><i>AT&amp;T Inc. said Sunday it will acquire smaller rival BellSouth Corp. for $67 billion in stock, in an apparent bid for total control of their growing joint venture, Cingular Wireless LLC. The deal would substantially expand the reach of AT&amp;T, already the country's largest telecommunications company by the number of customers served."</i><br /><br />Of course this requires FTC approval, and probably FCC approval as well, but I hope by now the government realizes how incredibly stupid the mandated breakup of AT&amp;T was back then. No one can predict where any technology area is going, and other than Al Gore who was busy inventing the internet back then, no one was even dreaming of the fundamental shifts in our telecommunications that the internet and cellular services have wrought.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2006/20060305-cingular.jpg" /><br /><br />For those of you with Bell South landlines, expect to see all sorts of billing errors in the coming months as they try to switch you to whatever they dream up. :roll: Never before have I been so glad I kicked Bell South out of my house almost 2 years ago when we went with cable for the internet and cellular for our phone needs. I suspect those of you with Cingular Wireless though won't see many changes other than the logo. Hooray the Orange X Man is dead!

[beq]

How are they going to avoid the embarrassment of going from ATTWS (blue) to Cingular (orange) back to AT&amp;T again?

Interesting how it'll dwarf Verizon as a whole. I'm not sure how it'll affect Sprint-Nextel, but won't it cause even more problems for T-Mobile (what with all the talk of triple-plays and quadruple-plays from these large combined companies)?

http://news.com.com/2100-1037_3-6046081.html

AT&amp;T said Sunday it will acquire fellow phone company BellSouth in a stock deal worth $67 billion, creating a telecommunications giant that dwarfs its nearest competitor Verizon Communications.
...
AT&amp;T's latest move will likely have repercussions throughout the industry. For example, it could force Verizon to make a play for Qwest Communications, the fourth surviving Baby Bell operating company.

Verizon announced its bid for long distance carrier MCI last year after SBC had announced its acquisition of AT&amp;T. Verizon entered a bidding war with Qwest Communications , which offers local phone service and high-speed Internet access to customers in 14 western states. Eventually, Verizon paid $8.44 billion for the formerly bankrupt MCI .

AT&amp;T's move to acquire BellSouth could also spur Verizon into action on the wireless front. Currently, it jointly owns Verizon Wireless with European carrier Vodafone. Verizon's CEO has mentioned on several occasions that he is interested in buying Vodafone's 45 percent stake in the wireless company.

[ricksfiona]

Oh yes, and it's the same CRAPPY service too! 8O

I've been trying to work with SBC/ATT the last couple of weeks, trying to get a simple DSL working... It took a MONTH for them to get their act together. We can all expect phone rates to go up as well....

[emuelle1]

I'm sort of apathetic when it comes to Cingular. My phone works and I have a signal everywhere I need one, so I'm not really bothered. If I could jump I would, but staying with them doesn't bother me so much.

I too have kicked the landline to the curb. My experience with Verizon DSL was a flat disappointment, and I have no plans to use a telco for internet access again. Cable has always worked for me despite the fact that it always costs more. I definitely don't miss my landline. I was paying Verizon $50 a month for telemarketers to call me literally every 20 minutes, even though I had the call intercept. Somehow they still got through.

I can say I'm happy about the death of the orange x-man. Something about that whole advertising campaign really creeped me out. The one commercial which featured sort of an ultra-sound where several of those things were seen in a womb disturbed me for some reason. Perhaps because my wife was pregnant at the time; I can't say. All I know is that commercial was very revolting to me.

[Clinton Fitch]

The announcement of the BellSouth purchase raises a few questions for me (which are pretty obvious).

How in the world is the FCC going to approve this after the "Bell Breakup" of the 80s? I just don't see how they could justify it - but then again, I've learned never to be shocked by anything in the industry these days.

I ditched my SBC landline a couple of years ago for Comcast cable Internet and Vonage phone service &amp; haven't looked back. The Comcast will be ditched as soon as someone sparks up the fiber that is now run to my curb. :D

Suckular is my cell provider but that may not be the case for long regardless of what name/logo/icon is on the bill each month.

[TheZodiac]

THE WOOL HAS BEEN PULLED OVER ALL OF YOUR EYES!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Now back to you™

[Phillip Dyson]

How in the world is the FCC going to approve this after the "Bell Breakup" of the 80s? I just don't see how they could justify it - but then again, I've learned never to be shocked by anything in the industry these days.


Some would argu that this new ATT is not a monopoly in any particular market they compete in.


On another not, as one of the few ATTWS hold outs, I knew I was making the right decision. :wink:

[ljclark]

I must have missed something. Where is the information that Cingular would go back to the AT&amp;T branding for wireless? :?:

[robshobs]

Of course this requires FTC approval, and probably FCC approval as well, but I hope by now the government realizes how incredibly stupid the mandated breakup of AT&amp;T was back then. No one can predict where any technology area is going, and other than Al Gore who was busy inventing the internet back then, no one was even dreaming of the fundamental shifts in our telecommunications that the internet and cellular services have wrought.

Without the breakup of AT&amp;T in 1984, we would not have the communications systems we have today. Prior to the breakup, there was basically only one place where you could buy a telephone for your house and it cost more than a cheap phone from Walmart cost today. Local and long distance services were far more expensive than they are now.

Business were at the mercy of AT&amp;T. They only communication service available were those offered by AT&amp;T. The 4800 baud modem was a premier service for many years and there really wasn't anything new on the horizon. Opening up the comminications world to competition drove new services at cheaper rates. The laws of supply and demand apply very well here.

No doubt that other technology would have driven AT&amp;T to make changes but would they have been as quickly brought to market? Would they be at a price that the average homeowner could afford them? Probably not.

The breakup was messy and created problems but the alternative would have been worse.

Rob

[gibson042]

No doubt that other technology would have driven AT&amp;T to make changes but would they have been as quickly brought to market? Would they be at a price that the average homeowner could afford them? Probably not.
While no analogy is ever perfect, IBM once had near-complete control over personal computing. Their "monopoly" was never judicially broken up, but their field nevertheless developed and expanded at a phenomenal rate... and in the process placed a tremendous amount of pressure on the telecommunications industry (hmmmm). IBM, once appearing as invincible as AT&amp;T, is now engulfed in a sea of competition and wields less influence than many of its much younger rivals. You say the breakup was better than any alternative. I ask if North America would still lag Europe and Asia in wireless technology today if resources spent on that mess had instead stayed where they belonged.

[Stik]

Of course this requires FTC approval, and probably FCC approval as well, but I hope by now the government realizes how incredibly stupid the mandated breakup of AT&amp;T was back then.

The Hoops...

" The AT&amp;T-BellSouth combination is subject to approval from antitrust regulators as well as the Federal Communications Commission. It's sure to get plenty of attention, not only among consumer groups but in Congress as well. "



The breakup was messy and created problems but the alternative would have been worse.

Rob

Some would disagree...

" The consumer groups and activists blame the 1996 Telecommunications Act for a wave of mergers and consolidation in broadcast, communications and media markets that they say has brought higher prices and fewer options for customers. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={A1ABCBF9-A8BF-4743-A8CB-4519A0B602BF}&amp;siteId=google :deal: Sorry about this bad linkage, but I don't know how to correct it. :oops:

[shindullin]

Over-all I would weigh in that the break up of AT&amp;T was a good thing. The old AT&amp;T was a government approved Monopoly. It literally owned all the land lines, all the routers, all the technology behind the routers and all the easment rights on private and public property needed to put down new fiberoptic lines. No competitor would have been big enough to challenge it over the short term and perhaps event he long term. The break up of the company created aggressive and innovative new companies that competed fiercely with each other for dominance. Remember the old Sprint vs MCI vs AT&amp;T long distance wars? That let to the aggressive adoption of fiberoptic lines that the old MaBell never thought was necessary. It was the necessary foundation for the beginning of the internet for the masses because before then only military and government connections were fast enough for web-type interactions with your computer. It also created several router companies out of which sprung Cisco Systems. MaBell never would have thought of creating the type of cutting edge routers Cisco created. They were still using massive buildings full of routers from the 1950's when they were broken up. Monopolies don't feel the need to innvovate because they have a captive audience. IT would have taken really, really big players (probably from over seas) to come in and pay the money necessary to lay down all those fiberoptic lines, pay for bandwidth and put up all those towers. And the routers to move all that traffic wouldn't have been designed and made in America. They would have been made somewhere else.
I'm actually not against the current wave of consolidation. The US companies are currently at a disadvantage bc their oversea competitors are so much bigger, ie NTT Docamo in Japan and it will take vast economies of scale to compete with them in the future international marketplace. But the break up was a good thing from the perspective of innovation and infrastructure investment. It would have been even better if the gov't had imposed a few rules like a single wireless standard but that's a different issue, one of implementation specifics.

[Jeff Song]

No doubt that other technology would have driven AT&amp;T to make changes but would they have been as quickly brought to market? Would they be at a price that the average homeowner could afford them? Probably not.
While no analogy is ever perfect, IBM once had near-complete control over personal computing. Their "monopoly" was never judicially broken up, but their field nevertheless developed and expanded at a phenomenal rate... and in the process placed a tremendous amount of pressure on the telecommunications industry (hmmmm). IBM, once appearing as invincible as AT&amp;T, is now engulfed in a sea of competition and wields less influence than many of its much younger rivals. You say the breakup was better than any alternative. I ask if North America would still lag Europe and Asia in wireless technology today if resources spent on that mess had instead stayed where they belonged.

I completely agree that when a company has a perceived monopoly in the market, it won't take very long for competitors to surface, especially in commodity goods like computers. IBM was faced with decreasing margins from growing competition from Dell and HP predominately, so what did they do? They sold off their PC division to Lenovo. Now IBM can continue being the largest IT services player globally until THAT market gets oversaturated and move on.....oh wait, they have :lol:

In any case, I don't think I like that new AT&amp;T logo. I loved the orange and blue combo (go Illini :mrgreen: ) but I guess it really doesn't mean much.

[Kacey Green]

As a younger person I actually learned of most of this through history books. But the bit I have been around to see firsthand has been most entertaining.

[Radimus]

I must have missed something. Where is the information that Cingular would go back to the AT&amp;T branding for wireless? :?:


Taking control of Cingular, currently run as a joint venture of AT&amp;T and BellSouth, was one of AT&amp;T's main reasons for the deal and would give it free rein to exploit one of the fastest-growing parts of the industry -- the huge demand for wireless services, company officials have said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500501.html

hmmm, I wonder if they'll do the early re-contracting as cingular offered for my old AT&amp;T contract. I still have a year on Cingular and I'd really like to get a Universal...

There hasn't been any word that they will actually rename Cingular to AT&amp;T, they may just keep it different... But I'd think they would to help puch package deals for all-in-one billing

[Damion Chaplin]

So here's my question:
If my contract is no longer with Cingular, but with AT&amp;T, does that give me legal recourse to end my contract with Cingular without an early-termination fee? I mean, my contract was with Cingular, not AT&amp;T. I didn't sign up to be with AT&amp;T, and I wouldn't have signed up if I had known it would become AT&amp;T...

[Ed Hansberry]

So here's my question:
If my contract is no longer with Cingular, but with AT&amp;T, does that give me legal recourse to end my contract with Cingular without an early-termination fee? I mean, my contract was with Cingular, not AT&amp;T. I didn't sign up to be with AT&amp;T, and I wouldn't have signed up if I had known it would become AT&amp;T...

First of all, the deal was just announced. It will be weeks or even months before it goes through, assuming no regulatory agency blocks it.

Second, it is a stock deal, and they keep everything. They can't change your contract other than the contions the contract allows, but you can't just opt out either. It almost certainly has a clause allowing it to be sold off and since this is a stock deal, it wouldn't matter if it didn't. Think of it this way. Joe has a contract with you. You get adopted by another set of parents and your last name changes. Your contract with Joe doesn't end, not for you, and not for Joe. That is pretty much how a stock transaction works.

[wshwe]

Presently AT&amp;T has a landline phone monopoly in all of the areas it serves. ISPs and other phone companies have to lease lines from AT&amp;T. This acquisition will only lead to higher phone and Internet prices. We wouldn't tolerate a national water or power company monopoly.

[acouch_21]

Well, since my cell phone still says "AT&amp;T Wireless" on the front (I haven't upgraded since the switch), I'm now one step ahead of the game. ;-)

[beq]

I must have missed something. Where is the information that Cingular would go back to the AT&amp;T branding for wireless? :?:
A few paragraphs down the article:AT&amp;T chairman and chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr., who would become head of the merged company, said he planned to market Cingular under the AT&amp;T name and was confident that the deal would pass muster with federal regulators.

My family members too are ATTWS holdouts :)

I'm kinda glad the AT&amp;T name will stick around. To me it has historical value/prestige carried over from the early days of yore (back when things were just being invented)...

[Phoenix]

A few paragraphs down the article:AT&amp;T chairman and chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr., who would become head of the merged company...

Edward E. Whitacre. Notice that this guy's initials spell EEW!!!

Hey, it just jumped out at me. What can I say?