Talk:AT&T Mobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Cingular.com

I just wanted to point out that cingular.com now redirects to http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/welcome/index.jsp. Also, nowhere on the page does it say "AT&T Mobility". On the navigation bar, it uses the term "wireless".Jcembree 02:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I think that this whole article should be renamed "Wireless from AT&T" as that is how they refer to it. Michaelcox 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, never has it been known as AT&T Mobility(at least to my knowledge as a rep) but always with the intention of transitioning from Cingular to AT&T Wireless. chrism583 11:58, 22 June 2007 (-6 CST)
The name is AT&T. Internally they use the name "AT&T Mobility". Majoreditor 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
As I posted above, the internal brand center for AT&T directs that all references should be "wireless from AT&T" (lowercase 'w' deliberate). Yes, I am an AT&T (former BellSouth) employee with access to that.--Donovan Ravenhull 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The AT&T webpage does now say "Service provided by AT&T Mobility."Cwc2311 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 19th AT&T/NASCAR

The information surrounding May 19th needs looking in to. Please see [1] or [2].

This is still on going. Pontiac36 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AT&T is still claming fewest dropped calls

Someone added that AT&T is no longer mentioning that they have the fewested dropped calls, which is false. even though they have dropped the claim, they still show commericals where two persons are talking on the phone, then to call drops. This is still part of their claim, no matter how they change it up. So even though web sites have reported the change, AT&T is still making the claim by using the dropped call commericals.

The2ndflood 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They currently claim only that "a dropped call can ruin a conversation". December, 2007.


http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/att-ditches-few.html

[edit] Windows Mobile 6 Update Controversy

I requested sources for the material in the "controversy" section related to the WM6 upgrade multiple times. There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a source, and what statements required sources. It is absolutely required that a reliable, third party source is provided to support what appears to be someone's personal commentary on the topic. A link to a single forum post is not a reliable source; a link to a general forum is not a reliable source. I'm extending some good faith in leaving the material up for a few more days; pending some rather radical re-write of what appears to simply be a trivial and non-notable consumer personal grudge. Please reference our policy on original research and the reliable sources guidelines. Kuru talk 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call a situation where a company promises something, doesn't deliver, and then doesn't give any reason why and won't communicate at all trivial and non-notable. Here's a link on AT&T's website that says the update is available, when in fact it is not: http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/windows-mobile/?_requestid=31563 This is especially considering around 200 pages of forum posts on AT&T's official forums on the lack of information on the Windows Mobile 6 update. However, I do appreciate the need for reliable sources. I'll see if we can come up with some sources. To be honest, I don't know how to actually put source citations in, as I'm kind of a novice at this, but if we can find anything, I'll post some links here and maybe someone can put them in.Cwc2311 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From what you've done today, you seem to have figured out how to add cites perfectly. It's still the reliability of the cites that is a critical concern. Again, we cannot use random forum posts, or blog entries, or original research to verify the claims of this being some significant controversy. If you can find some third party reference to the scandal in a newspaper or some other publication, that would be perfect. Kuru talk 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't add those citesCwc2311 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. When reliable sources are found, please let me know and I'll assist you in citing the material. As it is, the content completely fails WP:Verifiability. Since nothing has been forthcoming since I've asked for references, I'll remove the material for now. If you'd like to try and re-write it into some sort of neutral passage, I'd be happy to assist as well. Kuru talk 19:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't actually come up with the passage to begin with. I agree that it fails the standards for verifiability on Wikipedia. I think someone on the AT&T forums put the actual passage up. Perhaps a passage simply dealing with AT&T missing some release dates and having trouble getting the update out on all its upgradable phones would be a better passage. If so, I probably wouldn't put it under the controversy section. Any thoughts?Cwc2311 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. I'm just seeing the one press release from Palm talking about the availability of WM6 in March, but I assume AT&T put out something as well. It's really the hyperbole of the previous passage that was causing my concern; a simple referenced annotation that something was advertised and then not delivered is fine. I would still question the notability of such a thing, but as you noted above, that assessment is subjective and I'm willing to concede the point. Kuru talk 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what are the frequencies for ATT

I know there native frequency is 850 MHz and from what I am aware of ATT sold there 1900 MHz (1.9ghz) to t-mobile


what are the frequencies UMTS, W-CDMA ?

i have found my answer ATT uses a mix of 1900mhz and 850mhz

this makes there UMTS handsets and UMTS network closed from non ATT phones unless they are umts(wcdma) quad-band

~Tauri5663~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.43.162.146 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who merged/bought who?

The article makes this confusing...

Who merged or bought who?

It seems as if AT&T and AT&T bought Cingular, Cingular bought AT&T, and then Cingular merged with AT&T.

Can someone give me some insight on this?24.58.143.68 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was overruled on this before (but the actual way that makes the most sense). SBC was split from AT&T back in the '80s... SBC went on to exist on it's own independent company with their own shareholders etc. Then in the 90's SBC buys AT&T's Wireless unit and merges it with Cingular.

That was when you had people with "Cingular Blue" and "Cingular Orange" wireless plans. (Blue meant you came from AT&T, Orange meant you were a Cingular customer all along.) AT&T (the Mom Bell or "Ma- Bell") started to have more money troubles. So their Cable business got sold to Comcast. The Telephone (Long Distance division) was snapped up by SBC some years later. But then, SBC after buying AT&T said that name was a better brand so they renamed all of SBC thereafter to at&t (small case) and that's where it is today.

Then Cingular got renamed back to at&t wireless... It was kind of a roundabout way for SBC to get their merger approved. If SBC had gone way back then and said they wanted to combine AT&T's Long Distance business with a Local phone company that tacktic probably would have gotten more opposition. So, they've done it piecemeal and then just rename the whole animal back to the way it would have been... P.S. Then the buyout of Bellsouth happen thereafter and became "at&t" too. CaribDigita (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge 300-page iPhone bill into AT&T Mobility#iPhone

There has been a degree of dispute about the 300-page iPhone bill article. It has both been deleted and declared a Good Article. The GA listing is based on the article meeting certain technical standards and does not in itself reflect directly on the notability of the subject. While it is accepted that at the time there was a media buzz on the subject, this is now declining, and there is a question as to the long-term value of an in-depth article on a single phone bill, as well as the focus of the article itself. As there is still an interest in the subject matter, and people may now and in the future wish to research the background to the event, it is appropriate that the article is kept in some form. It has been suggested that the article be merged with another article - iPhone has been mentioned - though this seems the most appropriate place. The article would need to be cut down to the essential details - a blogger got a 300 page (is it that big? the video itself seems to show fewer than that) bill which she then made a video of and released on YouTube which gained some media attention - when merging. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At this juncture, I'm not going to get terribly invested in this discussion except to point out the following. It seems you're inferring that the notability of the former topic is depreciating over time; however the apropos guideline states that "[i]f a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic." The notability of the 300-page iPhone bill has been upheld 4 (5?) times thus far, so suggesting it be merged and culled on that basis seems unlikely? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Policy states that "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", and a thoughtful essay - Wikipedia:Recentism - has some useful things to say on this matter. It is not unknown for articles on current news events to condense as time lends perspective. It is difficult to know at the time how notable a news event will become. Wiki is very good at tapping in on current events, and buzz events in particular are popular subjects for the typical Wiki editor. However, as we get a firmer grip on the event's notability so it becomes appropriate to deal with the article accordingly. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If your best argument for merging this article is an essay then the merge just isn't going to happen. As has been mentioned, 300-page iPhone bill has been evaluated for notability several times and has passed each time. It will not magically cease to be notable overnight, and certainly not in the brief timespan between the event and now. If we were to evaluate the article 5 years from now, maybe. Maybe. Now, not a chance in hell. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your comment was directed at me. I did reference a policy as well as an essay. And the essay is well used and respected, reflecting wide consensus. So I have referenced official policy and wide consensus. I'd also like to point out that the article has been deleted, then restored, so "passed each time" is not accurate. The article is problematic, and I am suggesting a solution. I have given what I feel are good reasons. Be nice to hear some thoughtful and insightful comments either in favour or in opposition to the suggestion. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Something that is written by a "respected" user does not have any sort of inherent consensus to it. You are, essentially, linking to another user's opinion rather than explaining it in your own words, which is fine mind you so long as you don't attempt to imply it means anything more than that.
As to concerns of notability, the fact that this was discussed at length in numerous news programs and newspaper articles and (indirectly or directly) led to a change in AT&T's billing policy seems to confirm its notability fairly well. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, let me get this straight: you want to merge a good article into a section of a B-class article, where the GA has more reliable sources (properly formatted to boot) than the target article, and is better written overall. Why is this thought necessary? WP:NOT#PAPER; WP:N#TEMP; WP:SS would be my policy links for why this is completely counterproductive; but I also approve of WP:RECENT, and absolutely abhor the "it's only an essay" argument. Oppose merge. Happy‑melon 09:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retail Locations / Kiosks

Does anyone have a cited source for the number of retail, Point of Sale locations for AT&T or AT&T Mobility? B.K. (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism?

I don't know who plagiarized who, but http://www.solarnavigator.net/sponsorship/telecommunications/AT&T.htm appears, almost verbatim, the same as this wikipedia page. I think that some parts are exactly the same and others have the same structure but use different words. 216.193.2.1 (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (meviin)