Jump to content

Talk:AT&T Mobility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stickguy (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 22 January 2007 (→Fixing the article: clarify I'm fine either way). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What shall we call the new article?

Since it appears that Cingular will not be come "AT&T Wireless", but "AT&T", what shall we call the article this born? AT&T (Cellular)? Donovan Ravenhull 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly AT&T (Wireless)? quack 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to "wireless From AT&T". as to avoid confusion by naming it "AT&T (wireless)"(Ke5crz 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It should be moved from "wireless From AT&T" to "wireless by AT&T" because that is the name at&t is calling it -jeh

It should be named AT&T (wireless services). Wireless From AT&T sounds like an official name, especially because of the capital f. It is simply AT&T, and the article describes the wireless services from the AT&T company and brand, so AT&T (wireless services) is the appropriate name for the article. Before providing an opinion, everyone should be acquainted with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Wireless and from should not be capitalized unless either is a proper noun or the first word of the title. Thus I have (wireless services) in small letters as part of my suggestion. Slo-mo 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, perhaps -- but it's still legally Cingular, and AT&T and Cingular both continue to use that name in press releases, on the web, and in the course of business. It's not time to change the name yet — even AT&T refers to the phaseout of the Cingular brand in the future tense. See my comments here for more. —GGreeneVa 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Rebranding

The USA Today article [1] says they "plan to drop" the name in favor of branding under AT&T, and they "might" still use the Cingular name in "some" markets.

In the Red Herring article [2], the Bellsouth spokesperson states that the rules of the joint venture allow either them or SBC/AT&T to sell under another name, and that "They are going to resell their Cingular service under the AT&T name, and I think this will be among their large business customers.” It also notes that the USA Today article does not state the nature of the new rebranding - whether it will be simply AT&T or AT&T Cingular.

Also: a Wireless Week article [3], in which Cingular states that "Mr. Whitacre's comments changes in no way how we will market Cingular. Our size and national presence is an advantage for our parents."

Per the current edit: I don't understand what is meant by "the joint venture would continue to operate as Cingular Wireless". The only evidence that warrants this statement is: the comment by Bellsouth, which has been made in the short time after Whitacre dropped the bombshell and is part of a sentence the second half of which is clearly speculative; and the comment by Cingular which is simply ambiguous. It may be true that the joint venture will continue to be called Cingular Wireless, it may even be likely, but there is no reason to say it outright until all parties involved make a point of saying it, and do so unambiguously. And if Whitacre is saying he wants to "drop" the Cingular name, it doesn't make sense to say he wants to market the service as AT&T in "many" markets.

I am changing the piece based on these reasons.


Well, AT&T is currently in the process of buying BellSouth. Both companies co-own Cingular, but once the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth is complete by the end of this year, then the brand names and logos of Cingular and BellSouth will be phased out and replaced with AT&T's. So the Cingular brand name and logo will revert to the old and familiar AT&T Wireless brand name, but with the use of the new AT&T logo. Don-Don 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell are they doing that? Let Cingular be on it's own! Same with Sprint.

Hey, I'm starting to see some TV ads proclaiming that Cingular is now "the new at&t: Your world delivered." Does this mean that Cingular is officially done? I am going to put them under "2007 disestablishments" if they're not already. Also, if the Cingular stores are becoming at&t stores that sell more than wireless stuff, wonder what will happen here, since we have Verizon here. Jgera5 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Customer Care

Yes, there is still cusotmer care operations still in India, from the purchace of the former AT&T Wireless. I work for Cingular, I know. --Romeo Bravo =/\= 00:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge we don't currently have any support for AT&T Wireless customers in India, just Canada. I'll do a bit more research and post my findings. -- As an update I just checked our knowledge base and then googled the search, what I have found is outsourced IT for the support of Siebel but no outsourced CS. If you have documentation though I'd love to see it. -- Marcus Finch 16:43:27, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Calling blue warranty exchange will tell you that we have call centers in india too, as well as to support blue go phones. --Romeo Bravo =/\= 18:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, when were we removed from the NY BBB? Iceberg3k 03:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cingular vs Verizon

From Cingular: [After a bidding war with Britain's Vodafone PLC, Cingular announced in February, 2004 that they would purchase AT&T Wireless for 41 Billion dollars. The merger was completed on October 16, 2004. The combined company had a customer base of 46 million people which placed Cingular as the largest wireless provider in the United States.]

From Verizon Wireless: [Verizon Wireless, headquartered in Bedminster, New Jersey, owns and operates the second-largest wireless telecommunications network in the United States. As of January 2006, the company served a total of 51.3 million customers ]

I am going to edit Cingular to remove what I precieve as an inaccuracy unless someone can explain that it is not.

199.201.168.100 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are at 54. something, which is more than Vz Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like 56 million now, but the actual number is sketchy.--170.35.224.63 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information

Cingular hitman (talk · contribs) has twice now (1st and 2nd) removed information from the article, claiming that the Boston Globe and the New York Times sources provided for the information are "opinionated, not factual" since they have reported on Cingular's advertising without filing a lawsuit. Does anyone else have a problem with the paragraph removed in the second diff provided above? -- Jonel | Speak 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is meant to define with the use of helpful fact a person, place, product, thing, etc. Jonel has twice now posted an article in relation to the "Allover Network" attacking Cingular's advertising and using opinionated articles from the New York Times and Boston Globe which are highly controversial in their own opinions to attack this advertising.

The motive for his postings are highly dubious. But the black and white fact is that the source that Cingular uses in their advertisement has in fact not filed any lawsuit against Cingular for citing them. In addition, the source (Telephia) freely sells this information to anyone. This was communicated to him politely during initial editing.

Jonel chose to be rude, and attack my handle and repost the information. Thats his choice. But I will not accept him posting and editing sections based on his own personal likes and bias. If Jonel really has a problem with Cingular Wireless it is feesible he simply starts a "controversey" section rather then edit sections to his own vision.

It is not neutral or objective otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cingular hitman (talk • contribs)

Having your first edit being a removal of information, marked minor and with an edit summary accusing me of acting "in a slanderous manner" ([4]) is hardly "polite". If you can find a source supporting the claims in Cingular's advertising, please feel free to add it. I would do it myself, but I am unable to find such a source, as the company that Cingular cites in the ads is less than vocal in their support of Cingular's characterisation of their research. My bias (which you accused me of in your second edit [5] or motive or lack thereof is immaterial—not one but two major newspapers have written about the advertising. Asserting that the newspaper articles are "controversial" is hardly reason to delete all mention of them, it is reason to provide reliable sources that contradict them, if any can be found.
As for the location of the paragraph, the "Allover Network" section is about the advertising and is the most appropriate place to put information about the advertising.
Your username hardly suggests neutrality nor objectivity, and neither do your actions to this point. -- Jonel | Speak 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed

I removed this, since it mars an otherwise very nice article. If someone wants to expand on this and re-add it, please do.

==Push to Talk== Now Cingular wireless has joined to PTT market offering PTT service through with Kodiak network technology. They currently offer 3 Phones in PTT.

-- Taral 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section was restored by someone else, and I have cleaned it up a bit, but I cannot believe that this feature calls for a separate section. Having not found another (better) location for it, I have left it in place, slightly improved. Mmccalpin 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add previously: I wasn't being snippy in deleting the reference to three PTT phones on offer by Cingular, but their web site shows two, not three (LG CG300 and Samsung D357), and in any case, the number is of low interest and likely to be far more dynamic than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Mmccalpin 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Its not important about the number of phones but they do offer 3 

http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phones/cell-phones.jsp?q_sortOrder=None&x=7&y=10&q_isPrepaid=false&q_targeter=PTT&source=INC230056

They also offer the LG Slider F7200

But it doesnt matter about the number anyways Locust43 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Roaming W/ Cingular

I would like this to be directed to the annoymous poster.

I think I know ALOT more than you would ever know since I work for Verizon. I roam on Cingular's towers every day Analog with my TRIMODE PHONE. If you need help resolving your problem of uneducatedness, CALL VERIZON! Actualy if you know how to read then read this PRL, the latest update. Here are the cold hard facts. 

 00075  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA051A  Jacksonville, FL
        CMA364A  Florida 5 - Putnam
 00037  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA012A  Miami, FL
        CMA072A  West Palm Beach, FL
        CMA208A  Fort Pierce, FL
        CMA361A  Florida 2 - Glades
 00175  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA022A  Tampa, FL
        CMA060A  Orlando, FL
        CMA114A  Lakeland, FL
        CMA137A  Melbourne, FL
        CMA167A  Sarasota, FL
        CMA211A  Bradenton, FL
        CMA245A  Ocala, FL
        CMA363A  Florida 4 - Citrus
 00325  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA146A  Daytona Beach, FL
 00229  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA100A  Shreveport, LA
        CMA206A  Longview-Marshall, TX
        CMA240A  Texarkana, TX-AR
        CMA454A  Louisiana 1 - Claiborne
        CMA456A  Louisiana 3 - De Soto
 01729  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA112A  Corpus Christi, TX
        CMA281A  Laredo, TX
        CMA300A  Victoria, TX
        CMA669A  Texas 18 - Edwards
        CMA670A  Texas 19 - Atascosa
        CMA671A  Texas 20 - Wilson
 00587  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA194A  Waco, TX
 00409  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA160A  Killeen, TX
 01711  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA662A  Texas 11 - Cherokee
 00579  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA237A  Tyler, TX
 00033  D/A  FRM Alltel Communications
        CMA292A  Sherman-Denison, TX
        CMA657A  Texas 6 - Jack
 00033  D/A  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA009A  Dallas-Forth Worth, TX
 00033  D/A  FRM VIVO (Brazil)
 00151  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA033A  San Antonio, TX
 00107  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA075A  Austin, TX
 00595  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (blue)
        CMA233A  Wichita Falls, TX
 00164  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (orange)
        CMA075B  Austin, TX
        CMA300B  Victoria, TX
        CMA667B  Texas 16 - Burleson
 00164  (A)  FRM La Ward Cellular
        CMA671B  Texas 20 - Wilson
 00038  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (orange)
        CMA009B  Dallas-Forth Worth, TX
        CMA292B  Sherman-Denison, TX
        CMA657B  Texas 6 - Jack
        CMA658B  Texas 7 - Fannin
        CMA660B  Texas 9 - Runnels
        CMA661B  Texas 10 - Navarro
 00098  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (orange)
        CMA041B  Birmingham, AL
        CMA222B  Tuscaloosa, AL
        CMA249B  Anniston, AL
        CMA272B  Gadsden, AL
        CMA307B  Alabama 1 - Franklin
        CMA309B  Alabama 3 - Lamar
        CMA311B  Alabama 5 - Cleburne
 00122  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (orange)
        CMA033B  San Antonio, TX
        CMA669B  Texas 18 - Edwards
        CMA670B  Texas 19 - Atascosa
        CMA671B  Texas 20 - Wilson
 00035  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (orange)
        CMA010A  Houston, TX
        CMA170A  Galveston, TX
        CMA287A  Bryan, TX
        CMA668A  Texas 17 - Newton
        CMA672A  Texas 21 - Chambers
 00184  (A)  FRM Cingular Wireless (orange)
        CMA112B  Corpus Christi, TX
        CMA670B  Texas 19 - Atascosa
        CMA671B  Texas 20 - Wilson


Taken from http://www.mountainwireless.com/prl/50510.htm


This is just a clip, there are ALOT more places where Verizon ROAMS on CINGULAR Locust43 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog phones on Verizon are dead and so is analog technology, the future is EVDO phones and those will never have AMPS support. Cingular needs spectrum for HSDPA and stuff, and they will shut down their analog soon when the FCC deadline to maintain analog passes.Patcat88 10:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The article needs to be completely reorganized. The sections seem to be random. Masterpjz9 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup done

Not to sound cocky, but thanks to my reorgainization and editing, I think we can remove the needs editing template. I'm going to, if you think it still needs it feel free to put it back-- but please tell why you feel thins way, by posting to this. aido2002 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cingular Competitors

I don't think we need the Cingular Competitors section. It's just repetitive with that and the American mobile phone companies template. -- Masterpjz9 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Article mentions an expected sales boost in January 2006. Can't verify that this happened and it's not really trivia anyway. Deleting it.

Largest network claim

www.cingular.com is not a reliable source for the claim that Cingular has the largest network. -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


But its a stated and listed and proven fact by them. Besides its their company, they should know. IMac4ME 04:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mMode needs an article

mMode needs an article. Mathiastck 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Allover does too. Iolakana•T 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Service Departments?

Is this really needed? Donovan Ravenhull 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I've put it here (the following subsection is the exact text I removed), in case someone wants to take a shot at salvaging it. -- Jonel | Speak 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Service Departments

Known (but not limited to) Departments:

  • BEUC (Business End User Care)
  • Customer Care
  • Fraud
  • IWC (International Wireless Care)
  • NBO (National Business Ordering)
  • NBS (National Business Services)
  • PAC (Porting Administration Center)
  • ANS (Advanced Network Services)
  • Premiere
  • RM (Receivables Management)
  • Sales
  • TOS (Transfer Of Service)
  • Warranty Exchange

Itunes?

"Since September 12, 2006, Cingular has been selling Motorola SLVR phones in its stores under the claim that they support iTunes. This is in fact false since the SLVR will not support the iTunes 7.0 software."

I'm confued enough by this that I wouldn't know how to fix it. Does the SLVR work with any version of iTunes? Does it just not work with that specific version? Mathiastck 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is really only for discussing the contents of the article, not discussing problems or inaccuracies in Cingular service. Sorry. Alphachimp 05:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UMTS/HSDPA

Why doesn't this article mention anything about Cingular's UMTS/HSDPA coverage and equipment?

ATT family

MAybe I haven't seen the RIGHT commericals, but since reading the part that says that Cinglar is using the ATT family below their logo about 3 hours ago, I have seen 4 Cingular commercials on TV, but none of them claiming Cingular is part of the ATT family. Amybody else seen them?70.149.191.99 00:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in print ads, and on several of the flyers and brochures in some Cingular stores. Kevin 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They use the AT&T family tag in AT&T markets, in Bellsouth markets, some things say Bellsouth family. Since it's market specific, that's why you don't see it in national advertising. But now that AT&T owns all of it, you'll start seeing more AT&T (or at&t) family stuff... at least until the rebranding.Symm 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No AT&T Wireless

I don't think it's quite clear what it means when the article says that there will be no "AT&T WIreless" Does it mean that you can't just get wireless without buying another ATT service? I don't understand it? 68.155.113.202 06:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its more to do with the stores won't be branded at&t wireless, just at&t. EnsRedShirt 07:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellsouth Mobility

Cingular to renamed to AT&T

Looks as Cingular name is being ditched. Cingular To Change To AT&T--68.180.8.45 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, from things such as the Macworld keynote, the Cingular brad is going to be closely tied to AT&T, but not ditched completely. This seems to be a mis-report at Engadget. aido2002 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we maybe hold off claiming that the rename has happened (as appears to be implied by the current language) until Cingular does change its name? To believe the Wikipedia page, they began rebranding on Monday, but their own website doesn't show anything implying that a rebranding even exists.

Their television commercials clearly say that they've already become "the new AT&T", and shows the Cingular logo spinning to form the AT&T logo along with the familiar Oasis music. See for yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WFUoEWLZp3Q —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knicholls (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've not seen the commercials, maybe they're not playing in my area. But http://www.cingular.com, which is available countrywide, at this time shows no signs of being rebranded. It's not even mentioned here I don't doubt that SBC intends to rebrand the company, but it would be incorrect at this point to suggest the rebranding has begun if the only mention of AT&T is in advertising. Squiggleslash 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article back to Cingular Wireless. Until AT&T formally comes up with a name (which, based on published reports, will likely be AT&T), and based on comments and citations in this very article that suggest that AT&T Wireless will not be the name, I'd suggest leaving it alone. --Mhking 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone

The mention of the iPhone in the introductory paragraph seems unnessicary, considering that it's already mentioned in the trivia section. I'm deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whursey (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is STILL Cingular Wireless

It is still known as Cingular Wireless, and is the most popular name for it. It will also most likely not be known as AT&T wireless according to phonescoop.com. Hollowman512 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At&t press release concerning Rebranding(Ke5crz 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That still doesn't clarify what the final name will be. Plus, it's still in the process of transitioning. The current article name is not accurate. -- Kesh 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since they have started running ads to announce the name change i felt in necessary to reflect that, whether it be interim or permanent, when they announce it's final name you can move it to whatever it is at the time (the ads just say "AT&T", but as you know that's taken)(Ke5crz 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have requested move protection at the moment till we can resolve this, as I can only imagine how big a ping pong match this will turn into.EnsRedShirt 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ article clearly says "Wireless from AT&T," and I am inclined to believe it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As do I.. That's why I am really glad it got protected under this name.. Plus Cingular wireless still redirects here, I don't see the big deal about moving it to the new name.. EnsRedShirt 07:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't called Wireless by AT&T yet. Go to http://www.cingular.com, notice the complete absense of the brand some Wikipedians insist it's trading under. Really, this is an unbelievable case of people jumping the gun, getting excited because they have a minor piece of information and making drastic changes to an article to reflect that information. The division today is called Cingular. That's what they're called, and that's what the article should be calling it. It should, absolutely, say that AT&T is in the process of rebranding the division, but it shouldn't be lying and claiming the rebranding has already been done. A few ads here and there (which, I have to say, I haven't even seen) saying Cingular is "Wireless by AT&T" (which could easily be "wireless by AT&T") is not an excuse to make these kinds of changes. Squiggleslash 11:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let's go to the source (w/ emphasis added):

Company
Cingular Wireless is the largest wireless company in the United States, with more than 58 million subscribers who use the nation's largest digital voice and data network. Cingular is dedicated to providing customers with wireless technology designed to enrich their lives.

Ownership
Cingular is solely owned by AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) now that the merger between its former parent companies, AT&T Inc. (formerly SBC) and BellSouth (NYSE: BLS) has closed.

If AT&T still calls it Cingular, and Cingular still calls it Cingular, we need to call it Cingular. Let's wait for them to change the name; they make that decision, not us. —GGreeneVa 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad running on TV Announcing name change (Ke5crz 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Which is entirely irrelevent. Cingular is still calling themselves Cingular. PLEASE stop insisting that black is white here! This conversation shouldn't even be happening. They've announced they're going to change their name, but as of now, as PROVEN several times, they're calling themselves Cingular.

You do not need to jump the gun. You certainly do not need to deliberately mislead by removing information about the name change from the article. This article needs to be based on the present, on the facts as they stand right now. Changing the article to claim that the company is not called Cingular and not actively in the process of being rebranded is basically lying.

Quit it. And don't vandalise the front page again. Squiggleslash 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to edit the logo i ment to edit the tag line which if you read this news release http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23308 states the new tag line as "Raising It Higher" i leave it to you to see for yourself. and no i'm not a vandel. i'm a human who makes mistakes. (Ke5crz 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies for getting heated. You reverted more than the logo and tagline, also the initial sentence of the article which described the company as transitioning from Cingular Wireless to AT&T. I honestly thought this was another attempt to take the whole "We need to erase any reference to Cingular from teh entire wiki!" to a brand new level... Sorry.

Cingular's own website is still using "Raising the bar". It's also notable the press release you quote indicates that "Raising the bar" remains Cingular's current tagline, and the only reference to "Raising it higher" indicates that this is the name of a campaign, not a tagline:

The campaign will kick off with several creative executions called "Raising It Higher," which morphs Cingular's familiar "raising the bar" tag line and imagery into the AT&T globe. The first version of this creative execution is called "Grain," which shows a combine harvesting wheat and appears to be drawing the Cingular five bars, but as the picture zooms out, the AT&T globe comes into focus. Both broadcast TV and print executions are scheduled to start the week of Jan. 15.

Other comments within the article imply the tagline remains "Raising the bar". So I think this is just a misunderstanding. I don't think there are any plans to change the tagline (except possibly when the branding finishes and Cingular takes on whatever AT&T's corporate tagline is.) Squiggleslash 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a cue from AT&T...

Look. When I had this article moved to the name AT&T Wireless, I thought there was much evidence to support the idea that tthey will rename Cingluar as AT&T Wireless, but in retrospect, the most I should ahve done was make the page a redirect to here. However, they are NOT calling it "Wireless From AT&T", and they are still calling it Cingular. As of my time of writing, AT&T says on this page from their website, which is a page of logos for media use, that they are calling it Cingular, and provides the "Rasing the Bar" Cingular logo for use. So, not to attempt to bypass dicsussion, but as per this, I will move the article to Cingular, and change the refferences to "Wireless From AT&T", and "AT&T Wireless" to Cingular (Except when reffering to the AT&T Wireless that Cingular took over, as in the one that was owned by the old AT&T, of course). aido2002 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would AT&T run commercials saying that Cingular is now "part of the new AT&T" complete with the AT&T logo, if they weren't renaming it to AT&T? There are more than enough links that have been posted, which clearly say that AT&T has started the rebranding as of January 15th, and that it will be a while (around the summer) before the retail stores are rebranded.
I hate to break it to you, but corporate web sites aren't as dynamic as Wikipedia. It is entirely possible (and plausible) that references to Cingular's old logo on AT&T's site are simply outdated. Kevin 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's claiming they're not going to rename it, the issue right now is that they haven't, yet. They themselves have said the rebranding effort is going to be spread over several months. The issue right now is that they haven't... yet. Right now, the article should be Cingular Wireless, not "Wireless by AT&T", the latter of which is probably dubious anyway. At the very least, we should wait until www.cingular.com changes... Squiggleslash 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what Squiggleslash just said. I think we agree the name will change; it's just that, empirically speaking, the name has not changed yet. Cingular calls itself Cingular. AT&T calls it Cingular. These are fresh, up to date references on the corporate web sites, which ought to be primary sources for this discussion. If they say it's Cingular, — and they do — it's Cingular. —GGreeneVa 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix this?

I notice last night some ?!#$! again, removed anything that referred to Cingular as being the current name or that the company is being transitioned to the AT&T brand.

I can't edit this from home, because for some reason articles above a certain size can't be edited from my home DSL connection (I have no idea why...), could someone fix the front page so that these changes are effectively undone?

The person who did this even left in the reference the shows Cingular is still Cingular's name!

We need the page moved back to Cingular Wireless too, this is getting ridiculous. It should not have been locked at the wrong title for this page. What do we have to do to get the page unlocked and moved to where it's supposed to go? Squiggleslash 11:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i need to clear up why i chose "Wireless From AT&T" over "AT&T Wireless" or "(wireless)". It was to avoid confusion that may have arisen from using the AT&T Wireless name (most likely a major reason they chose not use wireless in their name). I never have and never will go by what a company homepage says I look for press releases (official statements from the company) for my info. The Press release i read said "cingular is now the new AT&T" subsequently i changed the article name to match. If you look at youtube there is absolutely no evidence other then a press release they are owned by google. the example here would be that just by looking at their homepage (or their entire site for that matter) you could not tell they where owned by google.(Ke5crz 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here's the problem in a nutshell (emphasis added):
You. Do. Not. Get. To. Choose. The. Name. AT&T chooses its name. We report that change once they've made it. And right now, all corporate literature still refers to the division as Cingular. Even the press release you point to says, and I quote (emphasis added):
Translation: the legal hurdles haven't been jumped yet. The name is still legally Cingular Wireless. And AT&T itself speaks of the phasing out of the brand in future tense ("will be phased out").
Can we wrap this up already? The name'll change someday, but — insha'Allah — the world will not end tomorrow. —GGreeneVa 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current press releases do not say that Cingular has been renamed to AT&T, still less "Wireless from AT&T", they say that there's a process of rebranding it to AT&T (note, not "Wireless From AT&T") which is going on at the moment, with plans to phase out the Cingular brand later on.

The company is called Cingular Wireless, as of today. That's how they're trading with the general public. That's what their current press releases state. It's what the bulk of their marketing are using. There is no evidence that they've changed name yet. There are a few ads that are in line with the AT&T press release from AT&T, and that's about it.

The steps right now that must be done are:

  • Restore the references to Cingular Wireless and the fact a transition is in progress.
  • Rename this article to Cingular Wireless, which is the current, current, name of the division.
  • Wait for AT&T to phase out the Cingular name (which they've stated is a future event, not a current event), and then rename the article in accordance with AT&T's rebranding.

Finally, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about YouTube. Nobody's arguing that AT&T doesn't own Cingular. And nobody's renamed the YouTube page to Video Clips From Google.

  • Or if everyone feels AT&T Wireless (The previous manifestation) was importaint enough to warrant having an article (i.e. do you think that people 50 years from now will want to lookup facts about what AT&T Wireless (the company) looked like in its day). Then- one suggestion would be to name the previous AT&T Wireless as something like "AT&T Wireless (19xx-2004)"? and the "New Cingular" as "AT&T Wireless (2007-Current)." CaribDigita 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For legal intents and purposes, the name has not changed yet. If you go into a Cingular location and purchase something, the receipt will say Cingular. If you write a check to them to pay for your cellular service today, that check will be written to Cingular. Furthermore, here in Atlanta (at Cingular's corporate headquarters offices), the sign on the door still says Cingular. This is despite signage on most BellSouth buildings (including their headquarters over at Lindbergh Plaza) starting to change and reflect both names for now. I reverted this thing one, I'm not going to do it again. But to put my two cents in, this more is premature. In addition, I think that moving the article without consulting the majority of the posters was disingenuous and out of line. I, for one, wish you had talked to people and reached concensus before doing that, especially given that it had been moved at least once already. --Mhking 03:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let this be a perfect example.... Wikipedia is supposed to be about taking votes--- before anyone does ANYTHING unilaterally. This is not Iraq here.... Let this be one clear example of why people are supposed to use the talk/discussion pages before they make huge changes. CaribDigita 04:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the absurdity of this sentence:

AT&T (formerly Cingular Wireless) was formed in 2001 as a joint venture of SBC Communications (now AT&T) and BellSouth (Acquired by AT&T in 2006).

Get outta town — AT&T was never known as Cingular Wireless. AT&T was SBC -- which bought the old AT&T. AT&T was formed by business associates and relatives of Alexander Graham Bell in the 19th Century — well before 2001.
Can we go ahead and fix this article, please? —GGreeneVa 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New name - let's ask the SEC!

According to EDGAR (and why a privately-owned subsidiary is reporting to EDGAR isn't clear to me), the new legal name of the former Cingular is "AT&T Mobility LLC". This doesn't necessarily mean "AT&T Mobility" will be the brand - more likely just "AT&T" or potentially even the aforementioned "Wireless from AT&T" - but a move to AT&T Mobility would look to be the best option for now. Is it too soon to ask to unlock the move button? (Changed my mind, see below.) — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for that when AT&T says the legal machinations have taken their course. It's good to have a signal of what the name will become — but for now, the corporation still publicly refers to its mobile division, and markets it, as Cingular. WP:NAME, if I read it right, would dictate that we (a) revert the name to Cingular, and (b) write in a prominent spot in the article that the company will become AT&T Mobility, although whether it plans to use that name in marketing is unclear.
The other point we haven't considered: Just as we have American Telephone & Telegraph Company to document the old AT&T, SBC Communications to document the current AT&T's corporate predecessor, and BellSouth to document Cingular's erstwhile co-owner, we probably need to keep Cingular around if only to document that company — how it came together, its marketing and slogans, its eventual denouement — in a location apart from the new AT&T Mobility, or whatever it becomes. Make sense? —GGreeneVa 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GGreeneVA - the page needs to remain Cingular Wireless until AT&T phase out that name as the name used to sell wireless service. That said, I'm not going to find a change to AT&T Mobility as objectionable, as long as Cingular Wireless appears, for now, in the first sentence, eg, something like:
AT&T Mobility LLC, currently marketed as Cingular Wireless, is the largest... (etc)
This is, at least, not as bad as the current situation.
Whatever happens: "Wireless From AT&T" needs to be removed completely from this page. Misunderstandings, such as the "Raising it higher" thing also need to be purged. The page needs to be factual, not based upon excited misreadings of rebranding campaign articles. Squiggleslash 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. (Ke5crz 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm indifferent as to whether we revert to Cingular Wireless for now or move to AT&T Mobility immediately, as long as it's one of those two. I was just suggesting an alternative in case people really wanted to move it now. My main concern, as Squiggleslash alludes to, is the clearly hasty move to "Wireless from AT&T", which I doubt will actually be used in any significant way in marketing, if at all.
Re GGreeneVa's comment on keeping Cingular as a separate article: I don't really see a clear enough distinction between Cingular and AT&T Mobility to merit this; it's the same company, with the same products and the same customer base, under slightly new ownership and new branding. In contrast the "new" AT&T Inc. replaced two separate companies, AT&T Corp. and SBC Communications, each with its own products. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the article

What steps do we need to take to get this issue resolved? Should I post a set of options, and then, say, people can vote and we'll put in a request to end the "Move" restriction on Tuesday night, or is there an established formal process for this? Is it too soon (I hope not, because I honestly think the current name is absurd, regardless of whether people feel it should be AT&T or Cingular)

My suggestion would be a poll of:

  1. Keep the current name
  2. Revert to Cingular Wireless, and then re-lock the page to prevent page moves. Reconsider the issue once AT&T begins phasing out the Cingular brand, as evident from the Cingular website.
  3. Change to AT&T Mobility, LLC. Ensure article immediately points out that it is about Cingular Wireless in the first sentence, to avoid confusion during the transition.

Pros and cons of each can be argued, I'd say:

  1. Pro: Requires least amount of effort. Con: Name really doesn't appear to have any basis except being a set of words (that was probably intended to be descriptive) heard in an ad.
  2. Pro: Probably least controvertial but locking of page against moves may be necessary as so many seem to believe change has already happened.
  3. Pro: Is legal name of wireless company, per SEC filing. Con: Is not necessarily name division will trade (be marketed as) under and is certainly not in use yet.

Are there other options? (This is not a proposal for a vote, this is a proposal as to what form the vote will take. I suggest posting it Monday unless there are big objections) Squiggleslash 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think a vote sounds wise. Tim Butler 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to Cingular Wireless and protect; there is absolutely no reason to make the change when the company itself has yet to change. --Mhking 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Cingular Wireless for now per WP:COMMONNAME, and protect. Once "Cingular" has clearly been discontinued, move to whatever the new brand is. If (as I expect) this turns out to be simply "AT&T", then move to AT&T Mobility as most logical way to distinguish from the parent company (given that it is the legal name). But equally willing to accept immediate move to AT&T Mobility (omit "LLC"). — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AT%26T_Mobility&oldid=102349296"