| Author |
Will this group's name be changing? Isso to what?
|
|
|
|
|
| Fred wrote:
> The subject says it all
Apparently it's moving over to alt.cellular.attws. You really can't
change the name of a group, you just create a new one and the old one
slowly becomes unused. Since alt.cellular.attws is already in existence,
it just made sense to use it.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:55:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46671134$0$27198$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Fred wrote:
>
>Apparently it's moving over to alt.cellular.attws. ...
In your imagination. No sign of it yet other than your annoying
cross-posts.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 46671134$0$27198$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> Apparently it's moving over to alt.cellular.attws.
no, it's not.
YOU want it to, but it's not.
| |
| Scott 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:md7e63l69bo2jbb
ujv608lgq0e64r0dtos@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:55:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 46671134$0$27198$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> In your imagination. No sign of it yet other than your annoying
> cross-posts.
>
Pot-kettle-black.
| |
| Scott 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:46671134$0$2719
8
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Fred wrote:
>
> Apparently it's moving over to alt.cellular.attws. You really can't
> change the name of a group, you just create a new one and the old one
> slowly becomes unused. Since alt.cellular.attws is already in existence,
> it just made sense to use it.
>
>
> [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
> non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
> away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
> AT&T's Wireless Service.]
When I got on this afternoon- 51 new posts in a.c.cingular, 7 new posts in
a.c.attws. Nothing is moving, although the threads are much more
unreadable due to your selective cross-posting.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:46671134$0$2719
8
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> When I got on this afternoon- 51 new posts in a.c.cingular, 7 new posts in
> a.c.attws. Nothing is moving, although the threads are much more
> unreadable due to your selective cross-posting.
It takes a while for the migration. It took many months for
alt.cellular.t-mobile to displace alt.cellular.carriers.gsm.voicestream.
| |
|
| I certainly hope it does not move back to the old name. Perhaps I am a
stickler but AWS is an acronym for a company that doesn't exist any longer.
I can see why we wouldn't want just ATT as the whole company is much to
broad for this group. AT&T is having their wireless salespeople put "AT&T
Mobility" on their business cards. I guess that would be a good compromise.
Fred
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:m8udnfxdyc6y3vr
bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:46671134$0$2719
8
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> When I got on this afternoon- 51 new posts in a.c.cingular, 7 new posts in
> a.c.attws. Nothing is moving, although the threads are much more
> unreadable due to your selective cross-posting.
| |
|
| I don't know if it's just that they don't have nearly as many subscribers as
AT&T or Verizon but there is still comparatively very little traffic on the
t-mobile group.
Fred
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46674b0e$0$2720
2$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
> It takes a while for the migration. It took many months for
> alt.cellular.t-mobile to displace alt.cellular.carriers.gsm.voicestream.
| |
|
| In article <_sJ9i.92854$vE1.29712@newsfe24.lga>, "Fred" <none@abc.com>
wrote:
> I certainly hope it does not move back to the old name. Perhaps I am a
> stickler but AWS is an acronym for a company that doesn't exist any longer.
> I can see why we wouldn't want just ATT as the whole company is much to
> broad for this group. AT&T is having their wireless salespeople put "AT&T
> Mobility" on their business cards. I guess that would be a good compromise.
>
Nothing "moves" unless a lot of people make it happen.
There are many newsgroups, though named for one specific thing, attract
a lot of people with varied inquiries and responses.
If this group has a life, more power to it.
Write a charter for it, too!
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Scott 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:46674b0e$0$2720
2$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
> It takes a while for the migration. It took many months for
> alt.cellular.t-mobile to displace
> alt.cellular.carriers.gsm.voicestream.
>
Apples and oranges.
The only delay in that migration was due to a.c.t-mobile being a brand new
group and the usual delay in being picked up by the major news servers.
Once Giganews and the other big players listed the group, migration
happened in less than two weeks and not many months.
That same obstacle does not exist in this case- a.c.attws has been around
for years and is carried on all of the major news servers for quite a
while.
The T-Mobile mogration was delayed because of technology hurdles. This
migration is delayed because nobody but you believes in it. 95% of the
content on A.c.attws is not original content, but material you are draggin
over from A.c.cingular. All new threads are starting in the Cingular
group.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-07, 4:33 am |
| At 06 Jun 2007 21:43:22 -0400 Fred wrote:
> I certainly hope it does not move back to the old name. Perhaps I am a
> stickler but AWS is an acronym for a company that doesn't exist any
> longer.
Agreed.
> I can see why we wouldn't want just ATT as the whole company is much to
> broad for this group.
Not really- just as alt.cellular.verizon covers Verizon's wireless
service (rather than their wireline service) alt.cellular.att might
be the logical successor to this group someday.
However, this is all very premature. When Voicestream rebranded itself
to T-Mobile, it was a year or two before the T-Mo group was created, and
to this day it still isn't carried (or archived) by Google despite
numerous requests.
> AT&T is having their wireless salespeople put "AT&T
> Mobility" on their business cards. I guess that would be a good
> compromise.
Not until that name is used externally (i.e. in advertising, store signage,
etc.) IMHO. AT&T hasn't really used the "AT&T Mobility" moniker in the
public arena as of yet.
For the time being, alt.cellular.cingular works just fine.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-07, 4:33 am |
| At 06 Jun 2007 21:45:36 -0400 Fred wrote:
> I don't know if it's just that they don't have nearly as many
> subscribers as AT&T or Verizon but there is still comparatively very
> little traffic on the t-mobile group.
It's just because we T-Mo customers have nothing to complain about! ;-)
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:26:06 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <f487ej$eet$4@aioe.org>:
>At 06 Jun 2007 21:43:22 -0400 Fred wrote:
>Not really- just as alt.cellular.verizon covers Verizon's wireless
>service (rather than their wireline service) alt.cellular.att might
>be the logical successor to this group someday.
>
>However, this is all very premature. When Voicestream rebranded itself
>to T-Mobile, it was a year or two before the T-Mo group was created, and
>to this day it still isn't carried (or archived) by Google despite
>numerous requests.
That's because it wasn't created and promulgated properly, as I warned.
>For the time being, alt.cellular.cingular works just fine.
Yep.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:47:24 -0400, "Fred" <none@abc.com> wrote in
<WeE9i.168054$mJ1.167401@newsfe22.lga>:
>The subject says it all
Probably not anytime soon (to the great dismay of those trying to
disrupt it).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|