<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/mobile-phones/cingular-to-become-att-say-what.asp" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:blog.tmcnet.com,2013:/blog/tom-keating//4/tag:blog.tmcnet.com,2007:/blog/tom-keating//4.31630-</id>
  <updated></updated>
  <title>Comments for <![CDATA[Cingular To Become AT&amp;T (Say What?)]]></title>
  <subtitle>VoIP &amp; Gadgets blog - Latest news in VoIP &amp; gadgets, wireless, mobile phones, reviews, &amp; opinions</subtitle>
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.38</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:blog.tmcnet.com,2007:/blog/tom-keating//4.31630</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/mobile-phones/cingular-to-become-att-say-what.asp" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://blog.tmcnet.com/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=4/entry_id=31630" title="Cingular To Become AT&amp;T (Say What?)" />
    <published>2007-01-13T00:04:02Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-10T21:35:14Z</updated>
    <title>Cingular To Become AT&amp;T (Say What?)</title>
    <summary><![CDATA[Honestly, who can keep track of all of the Baby Bells, Ma Bell, the wireless services providers -- wasn't it supposed to be easier after the&nbsp;breakup of&nbsp;AT&amp;T that&nbsp;began&nbsp;in 1974 with&nbsp;the U.S. Department of Justice anti-trust suit against the telephone monopoly....]]></summary>
    <author>
      <name>Randy Savicky</name>
      <uri>http://www.strategypluscommunications.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Mobile Phones" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/">
      <![CDATA[<p><font size="2"><img alt="" hspace="7" align="left" vspace="7" border="3" src="http://www.cingular.com/home/images/cing_logo.gif" />Honestly, who can keep track of all of the <strong>Baby Bells</strong>, <strong>Ma Bell</strong>, the wireless services providers -- wasn't it supposed to be easier after the&nbsp;breakup of&nbsp;<strong>AT&amp;T</strong> that&nbsp;began&nbsp;in 1974 with&nbsp;the <strong>U.S. Department of Justice anti-trust suit</strong> against the telephone monopoly. (Thanks <strong>Wiki</strong>! -- and more on that later.)</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Now we have a </font><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/technology/12phone.html?ex=1326258000&amp;en=e7a48b3af4816a0d&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss"><font size="2">news&nbsp;report</font></a><font size="2">&nbsp;about how AT&amp;T is going to &quot;de-brand&quot; the <strong>Cingular</strong> name after its receent purchase of the company and turn it into AT&amp;T; this after <strong>SBC</strong> bought AT&amp;T earlier and deciced to change its brand nane to AT&amp;T.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Crazy or what!&nbsp; </font></p>
<p><font size="2">But how about fixing the often <strong>spotty wireless service</strong> that Cingular (er, I mean, AT&amp;T) provides -- why bother fixing the brand name if the brand attributes (the stuff that makes the brand the brand) aren't so good?</font></p>
<p><font size="2">A little background music please: </font></p>
<p><font size="2">Continuing the phone dereg history, u</font><font size="2">nder the terms of&nbsp;the settlement finalized on January 8, 1982, &quot;Ma Bell&quot; agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies in return for a chance to go into the computer business as <strong>AT&amp;T Computer Systems</strong>. (That's rich, isn't it?</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Effective January 1, 1984, AT&amp;T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (<strong>RBOCs</strong>) or&nbsp;&quot;Baby Bells.&quot;</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Reduced in value by approximately 70%, AT&amp;T continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although it lost&nbsp;market share to competitors like<strong> MCI</strong> and <strong>Sprint</strong>.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Who knows what other deals&nbsp;lurks in the minds of the phone and wireless providers ...</font></p>]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

</feed>
