Hmmm...so if we combine AT&T networks with Cingular networks, would we actually have a good service or just one huge crappy service?

http://www.advertisingage.com/article.php?article_id=108937

Quote :

"Not sure why we didn't see this earlier, but everyone's favorite wireless brand, Cingular, is going to go bye-bye. AT&T is currently purchasing Cingular's parent company, BellSouth, and will remove the Cingular name, replacing it with the euphonious AT&T Wireless. Gone, too, will be the dancing orange fellow we all know and love. Branding and building the Cingular line cost BellSouth $4 billion. Oh well."

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 1:40 PM. Reason : forgot the strikethrough that imposes sarcasm]

5/10/2006 1:26:41 PM

the person who wrote that little quote there has an irrational love of cingular.

5/10/2006 1:28:18 PM

Their networks are already combined. Cingular bought ATT Wireless a year or so ago.

5/10/2006 1:30:58 PM

Maybe the constant shitty reception and dropped calls will stop?

Nah. Probably not.

5/10/2006 1:33:05 PM

yea, im guessing now AT&T is just buying out the name

5/10/2006 1:33:14 PM

yeah Cingular bought AT&T wireless, but i think now AT&T is buying Bellsouth, which in turn happens to own Cingular... kinda odd

5/10/2006 1:33:51 PM

What shitty reception?

5/10/2006 1:34:55 PM

^ yeah Cingular has made HUGE stride in call quality (mainly referring to dropped calls) in this area. I was ready to switch but rarely have dropped calls anymore...though there is this one spot on the beltline...

5/10/2006 1:40:12 PM

I have never experienced dropped calls.

I had ATT Wireless for a month in 2003, and it always dropped my calls (although they had an automatic credit thing), but with cingular no issues for the last 4 years.

5/10/2006 1:41:12 PM

^^ Everyone hits that one spot, even CDMA phones actually.

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2006 1:41:34 PM

i only had dropped calls with cingular when i had a motorola

5/10/2006 1:55:05 PM

Quote :

"yeah Cingular bought AT&T wireless, but i think now AT&T is buying Bellsouth, which in turn happens to own Cingular... kinda odd"

Quote :

"Not sure why we didn't see this earlier, but everyone's favorite wireless brand, Cingular, is going to go bye-bye. AT&T is currently purchasing Cingular's parent company, BellSouth, and will remove the Cingular name, replacing it with the euphonious AT&T Wireless. Gone, too, will be the dancing orange fellow we all know and love. Branding and building the Cingular line cost BellSouth $4 billion. Oh well."

it looks like most of the crap posted in this thread is off-base

sbc owns 60% of cingular - sbc and at&t are now 1 company - thus at&t owns 60% of cingular

bellsouth owns 40% of cingular

at&t is buying bellsouth

after the sale is complete at&t will own all of cingular

5/10/2006 1:58:39 PM

SBC merged with Bellsouth and changed its name to ATT.

Bellsouth was the only obstacle to naming Cinbular ATT Wireless.

Cingular is now being named ATT Wireless.

...

Next year, ATT buys out verizon and we're back to the glory days.

5/10/2006 2:16:27 PM

Quote :

"SBC merged with Bellsouth and changed its name to ATT. SBC/AT&T are in the process of buying Bellsouth Bellsouth was the only obstacle to naming Cinbular ATT Wireless. Cingular is now being named ATT Wireless. ... Next year, ATT buys out verizon and we're back to the glory days. AT&T wo'nt be Verizon - even if attempted it will never be allowed - the only company left that be bought up is Qwest - which nobody wants to touch because it's the ugly stepchild - but if anyone does it will be Verizon/MCI"

5/10/2006 2:22:44 PM

^^^ Ok, I'm glad someone here is actually informed.

^^ ha seriously, back to the Ma Bell days.

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ga]

5/10/2006 2:24:36 PM

i've been working for sbc and now sbc/at&t since 03/05 - i'd say it's close enough to accurate

5/10/2006 2:26:51 PM

I cannot carry on a call of more than ~15 minutes in my apartment without it dropping. I get crappy reception everywhere in my apartment. I get mediocre reception outside said apartment. Maybe I'm just in a dead zone, but...when I previously had Sprint, while the reception still wasn't great, I almost never had any drops.

5/10/2006 2:31:33 PM

Depending on where you live

you probably have a shit phone.

5/10/2006 2:45:20 PM

Nokia 6230. Not quite a year old.

5/10/2006 2:48:03 PM

no, gsm is the problem...unless they're switching over to something useful like cdma, at&t service will blow just as badly as all other gsm carriers

5/10/2006 3:06:35 PM

GSM is what most of the world uses.

5/10/2006 3:11:41 PM

yep

5/10/2006 3:15:15 PM

well i like GSM, otherwise i have to go and bitch to a service rep to change phones.

5/10/2006 3:24:37 PM

ALL YOUR CINGULAR ARE BELONG TO US!!1!

I'm confused ... does a buyout necessarily mean a name change/complete product overhaul. Seems the two don't go together ... not at least in the immediate short-term as everybody is talking about.

5/10/2006 3:26:59 PM

sbc owned 60% cingular

att and sbc own 60% currently - they wanted to change the cingular name to att wireless but they couldn't b/c bellsouth wouldn't go for it - so att temporarily changed to cingular

they are buying bellsouth - there is no one left to say no - so they are changing back to att wireless (they see the money invested in the branding change as a negligible loss i guess)

5/10/2006 3:31:43 PM

the 850 band is a pain in the ass

5/10/2006 3:55:33 PM

Quote :

"GSM is what most of the world uses."

Most of the GSM covered world is highly populated urban area too, the complete fucking opposite of the urban sprawl US. Hence why CDMA still dominates here.

5/10/2006 4:11:32 PM

what does sprawl have to do with which technology is better?

5/10/2006 4:14:01 PM

^^ true

^ GSM is not necessarily better, that's the problem...WHEN you can get a signal, GSM MIGHT have better voice quality, but the US is so spread out in terms of population that GSM (as a short-range signal) won't cover it...CDMA, however, which alternates between analog (yes, it's a battery hog, and yes, the voice quality is not nearly as good) and digital, so it can cover a larger area more effectively and give you a signal in areas that GSM wouldn't dream of reaching

aside from that difference, i suppose the rest of subjective...but as i travel (within the US) and i actually want to use my phone as a phone instead of a gadget to wow my friends at parties, CDMA is the only option if i actually want to utilize the service i pay for

there are a number of other things that make CDMA superior to GSM, including the EV-DO 2.5G data transfer standard (2.5mbps) and their 3G data transfer standard (5.2mbps) instead of GSM's EDGE data transfer (2mbps)

CDMA will undoubtably go the way of betamax, as most of the world DOES use an inferior standard and american consumers are mostly whores who like flash and glitter more than true functionality, but as is the way of progress, i suppose

check out http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=356787 if you want an in-depth explanation of why only idiots get GSM

5/10/2006 4:58:50 PM

I'll be honest with you, CDMA feaking rocks.

I have a Motorola v810 with US Cellular (it's the only provider in my hometown near the Outer Banks 'cause it's the only service that works that far east) and everywhere I go I get signal because this phone borrows off of any towers in the area. For example, in Raleigh it borrows Verizon's towers, but I can be fishing on a boat out off the coast of the Outer Banks and make calls clear as day thanks to US Cellular's coverage that far east.

I can't bring myself to switch; US Cellular phones are the least advanced and "flashy", but they make phone calls better than any other provider I've ever tried. Plus, I'm not charged any roaming fees all up and down the southeast (Florida to PA) no matter if I'm in a "covered" area or not. For example, if you go to http://www.uscc.com, it'll tell you service is NOT available in Raleigh, yet it is.

5/10/2006 5:09:38 PM

my only problem with cdma is the length of time it takes to connect

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ha i just noticed that quagmire pointed to the thread where he thought the d stood for digital]

5/10/2006 5:25:31 PM

^ that's right...oh, no, wait, i never once said that it stood for digital...btw, unless you have any facts to refute my claims on ANY of the points i made, you still got pwnt in that thread, buddy

guth is correct, however, that it takes cdma approximately 2 seconds to connect versus gsm's one second...i, too, would be willing to contract out for more expensive, crappier service so that i can save 1 second when dialing a number

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 5:38 PM. Reason : dialing times]

5/10/2006 5:36:41 PM

actually, the time difference is more
and i didnt get pwnt

5/10/2006 5:41:28 PM

i am basing my numbers on actual experience (me and a friend calling the same number, one right after the other, from the same location)...however, it will ALWAYS depend on the signal strength, phone model, etc...but if you have some hard facts, by all means, post them and i will ridicule, concede, or refute appropriately

5/10/2006 5:49:51 PM

oh thats why your numbers are different, cause you are going on anecdotal evidence

5/10/2006 5:51:24 PM

the last few posts scream homosexuality

seriously my v810 takes between 1-5 second to connect...life goes on, and at least it DOES indeed connect

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 5:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2006 5:55:21 PM

i was trying to get him to write another essay

5/10/2006 5:56:04 PM

i can copy and paste for you if the link isn't showing up on your computer

5/10/2006 5:57:12 PM

Jesus

bitches

CDMA coverage is good in the US only cuz all the antique companies have deployed massive networks. It's not like the RF travels a bit faster/expansively in CDMA.

fuck you

5/10/2006 7:49:40 PM

http://www.mrvfone.com.au/vfone/techtop/gsm_cdma.htm

GSM towers CAN have roughly the same range as CDMA towers, but most of the older ones don't.

5/10/2006 8:04:37 PM

All this CDMA versus GSM crap is boring. Its like the MAC versus the IBM argument all over again. Yes, CDMA is better technology. However, that doesnt really matter. The cell phone technology was really dictated by Europe when they standardized to GSM when CDMA was just becoming popular in the U.S. Ericsson and Nokia, being Euro companies, as a result, emphasized GSM phone an equipment development.

However, take all of that aside, nothing beats the coolness of taking out your sim card from one phone and throwing it into another without having to take it to a damned store for activation. Simple feature, but really important to me.

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2006 8:08:40 PM

^ i agree with all (especially the sim card issue), except that i enjoy pointing out to people that they embrace (stupidly, i might add) inferior technology because it's "cool"

5/10/2006 8:13:16 PM

japan and korea rock cdma, too

5/10/2006 8:14:11 PM

So are you saying the sim card switching is a feature of CDMA or GSM?

5/10/2006 8:21:37 PM

^ gsm...and i agree that it's a cool feature, very useful, and logical...i think it'd be cool if they did that for cars, too

5/10/2006 8:31:05 PM

Alright, just making sure. The last 5 phones I had were GSM phones through cingular. Never had a problem switching out sim cards and keeping all my phone numbers. I just wish these phones used standard usb connectors to sync up to your computer. THAT would also make sense. And yes, I know I could just get a bluetooth phone but I've always gone for that free to 40 dollar phone if I could.

But as far as people complaining about dropped calls in appartments, I had that problem too. Not with my newest phone, but my last one. Then again I'm in campus housing so I basically live in a faraday cage.

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/10/2006 8:34:20 PM

i'm assuming the v3i uses a usb cable just like the v3c does...for once, motorola took its collective head out of its collective ass and did something smart...why they all don't use usb cables still troubles me (other than the obvious, and probably only, reason of ensuring more profit by selling proprietary connectors)

5/10/2006 9:44:46 PM

ALL I WANNA KNOW

AM I GONNA GET ME A NEW PHONE OUT OF THIS?

or

CAN I GET OUT OF MY CONTRACT AFTER THE MERGER?

5/10/2006 10:40:19 PM

Quote :

"Next year, ATT buys out verizon and we're back to the glory days."

what do you mean by that?

5/11/2006 1:27:55 AM

^ AT&T will rule the telecommunications industry again just like it was when we were 2 years old.

5/11/2006 1:34:16 AM