Cingular cell phone service - AT&T purchase of Bell South approved

Author

AT&T purchase of Bell South approved

Jackzwick

2006-10-11, 12:33 pm

The Bush admin Justice Department, again rubber stamps what big business
wants to do.

Guaranteed Cell prices are going up.

http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/iHK6z...-Deal-Approved.
xhtml

Cell prices went up after Cingular bought AT&TWireless. You now get 700
minutes for $59.99 Family plan, instead of 850 it was prior. The cost of
7 PM nights just went up also.

Todd Allcock

2006-10-11, 12:33 pm

At 11 Oct 2006 15:57:25 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> The Bush admin Justice Department, again rubber stamps what big
business
> wants to do.
>
> Guaranteed Cell prices are going up.

I doubt AT&T's purchase of BellSouth is going to have much of an effect
on cellular. Cingular was already an entity entirely owned by SBC (AT&T)
and BellSouth. The net change is sort of like if a man and a woman each
owned half of a business and then got married (then fired 10,000 of their
children eliminating duplicate positions, but I digress...)

> Cell prices went up after Cingular bought AT&TWireless. You now get 700
> minutes for $59.99 Family plan, instead of 850 it was prior. The cost
of
> 7 PM nights just went up also.

That was for two reasons: there was one less competitor in the cellular
industry after the buyout, and also, ATTWS had reduced rates and offered
a bunch of promotional plans shortly before the buyout because they were
sinking fast.

Those "lower rates" you gave examples of were essentially ATTWS' "going
out of business sale!"

This time around, at the end of the day of the buyout, there'll be
exactly the same number of cell companies there were that morning.

The only effect this merger should have on your Cingular bill is the new
$0.85/month "Collateral, resignage, and fixture" fee they'll add to "help
defray the costs of converting our store signs, fixtures and brochures
from orange Cingular-logoed to blue AT&T-logoed. This is not a
government-imposed tax or surcharge..."

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

Jackzwick

2006-10-11, 3:33 pm

In article < 452d106f$0$19619$882
60bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 11 Oct 2006 15:57:25 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
> business
>
> I doubt AT&T's purchase of BellSouth is going to have much of an effect
> on cellular. Cingular was already an entity entirely owned by SBC (AT&T)
> and BellSouth. The net change is sort of like if a man and a woman each
> owned half of a business and then got married (then fired 10,000 of their
> children eliminating duplicate positions, but I digress...)
>
> of
>
> That was for two reasons: there was one less competitor in the cellular
> industry after the buyout, and also, ATTWS had reduced rates and offered
> a bunch of promotional plans shortly before the buyout because they were
> sinking fast.

Nice try. AT&T had offered free 7 PM nights. Cingular prices were
unchanged till a month ago when they increased. But Cingular had
promised the FCC- NO PRICE INCREASES.

Todd Allcock

2006-10-11, 3:33 pm

At 11 Oct 2006 19:02:54 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:

> Nice try. AT&T had offered free 7 PM nights. Cingular prices were
> unchanged till a month ago when they increased. But Cingular had
> promised the FCC- NO PRICE INCREASES.

Are former AT&T (Cingular "blue" customers affected? (I honestly don't
know- I'm asking. I don't follow Cingular as closely as I should
anymore, despite being a former dealer and former satisfied customer.
They are the only national carrier with no signal in my neighborhood.)

As for price increases, to the best of my knowledge, Cingular has not
changed the rates or terms of any customer UNDER CONTRACT. Did you think
they promised the Feds they'd never raise rates ever again for all
perpetuity?

Either way, this isn't really applicable to the situation at hand.
Cingular's "owners" will not change as a result of this merger, nor is a
competitor being created or destroyed. The exact same market forces in
play pre-merger will be in play post-merger.

Some might even argue that Cingular will benefit from the lower overhead
from AT&T and BS' consolidation, but in reality, cellular pricing is
primarily set by market forces, not internal costs. If Verizon, for
example, cut service prices in half tomorrow, everyone else would follow
suit out of necessity, regardless of whether they could "afford" to.

Similarly, if this merger drove internal costs through the roof, Cingular
still couldn't raise prices beyond what the competition-filled market
could bear.

So, again, this merger has nothing to do with the cellular market. I'll
join you in whining next year, however, when Cingular attempts to buy T-
Mobile USA to regain the "#1 carrier in the nation" position they'll
likely lose to Verizon by spring!

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

Jackzwick

2006-10-12, 7:33 am

In article < 452d3cce$0$19719$882
60bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 11 Oct 2006 19:02:54 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:
>
>
> Are former AT&T (Cingular "blue" customers affected? (I honestly don't
> know- I'm asking. I don't follow Cingular as closely as I should
> anymore, despite being a former dealer and former satisfied customer.
> They are the only national carrier with no signal in my neighborhood.)
>
> As for price increases, to the best of my knowledge, Cingular has not
> changed the rates or terms of any customer UNDER CONTRACT. Did you think
> they promised the Feds they'd never raise rates ever again for all
> perpetuity?

All the folks forced to migrate from ATTWS or TDMA have to get new
contracts, and thus ARE affected by price increases !

JohnF

2006-10-12, 10:33 am

"Jackzwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jackzwick-CF6A1C.06565812102006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> In article < 452d3cce$0$19719$882
60bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> All the folks forced to migrate from ATTWS or TDMA have to get new
> contracts, and thus ARE affected by price increases !

That has nothing to do with any merger. This has to do with technology
shift. Those people would eventually have to migrate from TDMA to GSM even
if ATTWS were still around. No company is going to keep two technologies
running for forever.

Jackzwick

2006-10-12, 10:33 am

In article
<rYrXg.254841$QM6.232534@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "Jackzwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jackzwick-CF6A1C.06565812102006@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
>
> That has nothing to do with any merger.

Wrong! Cingular promised the FCC that its purchase of ATTWS would not
increase prices. It lied.

Don Udel $ETC$

2006-10-12, 3:33 pm

"Jackzwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jackzwick-> Nice
try. AT&T had offered free 7 PM nights.

You think that might be one of the reasons there were not profitable?

Don

Todd Allcock

2006-10-12, 10:33 pm

At 12 Oct 2006 14:28:19 +0000 Jackzwick wrote:

> Wrong! Cingular promised the FCC that its purchase of ATTWS would not
> increase prices. It lied.

Not to "pull a Navas," but nowhere in an extensive search of Google was I
able to find any such promise from Cingular. Most of the press releases
of the era (Oct. 2004) mention that according to the agreement with the
FCC and DOJ, Cingular must divest itself of duplicate spectrum in a
number of markets, but there was no mention of any other concessions.

In any case, it's doubtful that any "promise" made would last for
perpetuity, and would involve either a hard deadline (i.e. "two years")
or the contractual period of affected customers.

If, say, Verizon, for example, is under no obligation hold rates static,
why would Cingular be forced to as a condition of a merger? The idea
behind a merger agreement is to insure adequate competition is in place-
not to artificially feign a competitive market via federally-mandated
price controls.

If the market has remained competitive, as the DoJ and FCC seemed to
believe two years ago, then that competition would be the force to hold
pricing in check.
This is what killed the attempted DISH Network/DirecTV merger a few years
ago. Despite a myriad of promises by DISH to hold prices, the Feds were
not convinced that a single satellite company competing with a single
cable company (in most markets) would be enough competition to control
prices. Obviously the Feds thought there was enough wireless competition
around to lose a major player (or two, since the Sprint/Nextel merger was
also approved!)

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

Jackzwick

2006-10-15, 7:33 am

In article <egm10a02gdf@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Don Udel $ETC$" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:

>
> "Jackzwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jackzwick-> Nice
> try. AT&T had offered free 7 PM nights.
>
> You think that might be one of the reasons there were not profitable?

Mainly their ghastly customer service, and their computer debacle as
they switched from TDMA fto GSM.

LinkBot