Cingular vs. ATT Wireless
by mjeffryes - 6/14/07 6:17 AM
In Reply to: Re: Well... by abyrd2000
To set the record straight, having working in telecom for some while now.
Cingular was a partnership between 2 major "baby bells", SBC and Bell South. ATT wireless was owned by "Ma Bell". ATT sold it's wireless division to Cingular. SBC purchased ATT, but kept the ATT name because it has more market recognition. ATT (SBC) purchased Bell South and now owns all the original partners in Cingular. They renamed, are branding everything ATT for uniformity across all product lines.
All that being said. When choosing a wireless partner you only have 4 choices:
Everything else is a switch-less reseller (or VNO) of some sort.
In reality Sprint is the 3rd wheel and while it may have been a decent choice they just don't have the influence of ATT or VZ. Rumors are out there about their status on the auction block, they are probably out of the running.
T-Mobile is a Dutch subsidiary that has a limited footprint, not in the running.
So you are down to ATT and VZ, pick your poison. Remember VZ bought MCI, formally known as Worldcom, remember the largest accounting fraud in US history? Yeah, that's in VZs house now. So Apple has to get in bed with one of these guys, they chose ATT.
This is part of the reason I think the iPhone is a bad move for Apple. You are bringing a high dollar product to market that has limited capabilities (no 3G) and you have to partner with someone who is bigger an much meaner than you. Apple has never competed in this space, I'm not sure everyone understands what a dirty world telecom is.
Matt formally in Deep Ellum
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)