Talk:AT&T Mobility/Archive 1

Adding an External Link
Hi there. I am trying to add Cingular's job site link to this page. The URL is - http://cingular.jobs2web.com/ This is in fact Cingular's SEO friendly career website. You can verify this with anyone at the Cingular corporate office. We create SEO friendly job sites for large companies that may not otherwise get organic visibility due to their ATS systems. The link was deleted due to the fact "I was advertising"

That is not the case. I do see this as a relvant link to add to Cingulars company page. I am not doing this for ranking value, we already get good rankings. I am trying to add this purely because it makes sense. I have successfully adding career website links to other company pages.

Thank you


 * Just because a link relates in some way to Cingular does not make it relevant to the article. A quick Google of "Cingular" will give you some idea of how disastrous the approach of "Has something related to Cingular, include it" would be. It's also obvious from what you've written above that you are employed by the organization that benefits from this link being widely publicized.


 * Please don't add it to this page. If someone wants to find out about career opportunities at Cingular, they're better off visiting and following the links from there. It's not as if Cingular's home page doesn't have a "Careers" link in plain view. --Squiggleslash 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. Tngu77 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)tngu77

"Fewest dropped calls"--Cingular vs. Verizon Wireless
I remember that sometime back in 2003-2004 that Verizon Wireless rolled out commercials proclaiming that they had the network with the "fewest dropped calls." This is well ahead of Cingular's "copycat" (if appropriate) advertising campaign beginning with Q1 of 2006 ("Fewest dropped calls"). I have found some YouTube videos that proves my statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BREOpoGUeLc  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eJmZW3ojI  (These are REAL Verizon Wireless commercials--NOT PARODIES OR KNOCK-OFFS.  And also these YouTube videos are not mine either.) Tngu77 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77


 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here... --Squiggleslash 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really a point...just a keen observation. (Actually, I do have a point--just read on to find out.) But still, it's very interesting how cell phone companies proclaim that they have the "best," "largest," what-have-you network.


 * Full disclosure: I currently have Verizon Wireless (prior I had Alltel, T-Mobile (when the "Cat" was still around), AT&T Wireless (prior to the year 2004--merger btw. Cingular and AT&T--"First Round"), Cingular (before and after the merger), Sprint (before and after the Sprint/Nextel merger), and Nextel at least once in my lifetime.  By general comparison, I had better coverage in the Bay Area (hint: it's NOT San Francisco) with Verizon Wireless than with any other carrier.  (Alltel and T-Mobile came close and therefore my "backup carriers," meaning that if something happens to Verizon Wireless (I certainly hope not), I will resort to them.  (I used to harshly rebuke Alltel for the lack of coverage at my home--OUTSIDE--and now they have really made improvements at my place--they have redeemed themselves--especially "My Circle".  Now I harshly rebuke Cingular for the poor customer service I have received--let alone the numerous call connection failures and some dropped calls, if my calls DO connect.)  Sorry that I have offended loyal Cingular customers; I wish the best to them, but unfortunately, Cingular (and a slew of others) did not work out for me.


 * Still, my "point" is that did Cingular (now the new at&t) knew Verizon Wireless had already made the statement: "the network with the fewest dropped calls" before Cingular used the statement?


 * By the way, I'm puzzled why Telephia, Cingular's "leading independent research company" who came up with the "fewest dropped calls" (did they???) did not make their findings openly public.


 * Lastly, another "Full Disclosure," I am NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM A Verizon Wireless employee, employer, manager, spokesperson, compensated (or uncompensated) endorser, affiliate, etc.


 * Tngu77 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77


 * Well, ok then...


 * FWIW, you would expect the "top" mobile phone company, measured by any metric, to change from time to time. In this case, dropped calls, independent research appears to suggest that it varies from area to area, hence T-Mobile's billboards in many areas proclaiming it to have the lowest dropped calls in that particular city. (T-Mobile has a fairly high quality network in the areas I've used them, so it surprises me somewhat that they don't over-all have a better record than Cingular and Verizon, but I guess there must be areas where they suck.)


 * I certainly wouldn't expect a company that the latest research shows leads in a particular, important, metric to keep quiet about it!


 * --Squiggleslash 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I _do_ acknowlege that. The only problem with T-Mobile is the limited coverage area.  (Urban areas, interstate highways, etc.)  Otherwise, the network quality is second to none (compared to Cingular).


 * By the way, T-Mobile let the "Cat's" advertising contract expire in opting for a more mundane "everyday people" type of advertising (and to introduce "My faves" a plan where you can call 5 people for free--similar to Alltel's "My Circle," execpt that it allows 10 people for free.)
 * Tngu77 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77

What shall we call the new article?
AT&T Mobility is the official name for the wireless division of AT&T, even though it isn't used in advertising. How about using this for the name of the article? 2/1/07 4pm

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)

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

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))

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 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. &mdash;GGreeneVa 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. Looks like AT&T is trying not to use the old "AT&T Wireless" name in order to avoid confusion.  Until they finalize the name change (if any), the article should stay as is. The "doing business as" link is good enough for now.--Janus657 16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we call it AT&T Cingular, as far as I'm aware, its using both AT&T and Cingular brands. When the ehole thing becomes AT&T, they should merge it with AT&T Wireless, but do it in sections (Start of original AT&T Wireless, Start of Cingular, AT&T Wireless becomes Cingular, Cingular become AT&T, etc). Please note these are my views and I have nothing to do with AT&T. (I live in UK)

AT&T Rebranding
The USA Today article 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, 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, 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)

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)

Everything will simply be branded under the AT&T brand. Cingular stores will become AT&T stores and will provide customer service points for products beyond cellular services (DSL, U-Verse, etc.). Wireless will simply be another part of the offerings from AT&T. Eventually everything cingular will disappear, including the Web site, as it will simply become integrated fully into the AT&T network.

In the hopes of clearing up at least some of the confusion that may still exist: I do customer-support for the company. Our current greeting is "Thank-you for calling AT&T about your wireless service...", and I've seen several internal communiqués under the "AT&T Mobility" name. FWIW. --Duneflower, resident weirdo 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Blue go phones no longer exist, and there are only call centres in the US and Canada. I do tech support for AT&T, and it's funny to hear all the racist customers that are so appreciative that they're talking to somebody that sounds American. --Nick Roberts 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Now we are at 54. something, which is more than Vz A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Removal of information
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)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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" 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  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Then why does Cingular still have the AMPS (analog) network? Verizon Wireless is not the only one feeding on Cingular's AMPS network.  Alltel, Sprint, and other CDMA carriers sometimes feed on Cingular AMPS network.  (Usually in the Gulf Coast area, since Cingular is the "strong" licensee in this area (especially Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Texas.) By the way, when it comes to GSM, I prefer T-Mobile over Cingular because they can handle GSM in a better fashion than Cingular.  (Yes, I know that T-Mo is behind Cingular in the latest network technology. i.e., HSDPA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tngu77 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Fairness, guys. Verizon Wireless is easy to pick on.  Tngu77 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77


 * Guys why all the fuss about roaming in a dead technology? I work for an Irish wireless carrier and though we never used an analogue network (opting for GSM/EDGE/3G(HSDPA) over analogue and CDMA, other competitors in Ireland who did, shut down the analogue network years ago. The only issue being, what incentives to offer analogue customers to make the transition over to the digital technology, whether that be the international GSM/UMTS route, or the American CDMA 1xEV-DO option. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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.

Should we also throw in the lawsuit that broke out recently between "the new AT&T" and NASCAR? they wouldent let them change the Cingular logos. Bubble 94 is bringin&#39; the JE££¥! 23:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Moot point now! :D AT&T is the nations largest network. Now that AT&T represents both local, long distance and wireless phone service, it eclipses Verizon et al in subscribers. What's more, with Unity plan pricing, it's a true network, unlike Verizon which is just a patchwork of local small time carriers. GodsTeam

This needs to be addressed by At&t. They do NOT have the largest wireless network as they claim, which is what their coverage locator claims. They may have the largest phyical network (in terms of infrastucture, landlines, etc) but not wireless. The largest wireless network in terms of coverage is Alltel. In terms of coverage with roaming partners it is Sprint. In terms of population covered with their own network (which is a different claim) it is either Cingular/Att or Verizon.Strunke 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this section mean in the article: ''“As of June 15th 2007, the service is available across much of the United States and AT&T claims to have the largest digital voice and data coverage in America. However, the coverage viewer on the same webpage, only shows coverage in the United States.”'' Is this some "America != United States" controversy? Because in that case, it's ridiculously pedantic, to the point of confusing the reader. It's quite clear that when AT&T/Cingular says “largest…coverage in America,” they mean the United States. They're not claiming coverage across the Americas, or anywhere else. So the snarkiness about their map only showing the U.S. is unwarranted. –Kadin2048 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

mMode needs an article
mMode needs an article. Mathiastck 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Allover does too. Iola k ana • T  15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just created one. --Surrealmonk 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Customer Service Departments?
Is this really needed? Donovan Ravenhull 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

Bellsouth Mobility

 * I see that BellSouth Mobility redirects here, to Cingular Wireless. What of the BellSouth Mobility DCS article?  It is currently an orphan page, see: Template:Orphan. -- James Kidd  ( Contr / Email ) 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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).
 * 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)

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)

Cingular Wireless will disappear completely and wireless will simply become one of the many products offered by AT&T like DSL and U-Verse.
 * This seems to be the trend for many telecom companies. Last year, Cincinnati Bell dropped the "Cincinnati Bell Wireless" brand and integrated wireless and DSL services under their corporate name and logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janus657 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

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).

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)


 * At&t press release concerning Rebranding(Ke5crz 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * 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)

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))


 * 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)
 * The WSJ article clearly says "Wireless from AT&T," and I am inclined to believe it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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.
 * I agree. Let's go to the source (w/ emphasis added):
 * "Company

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. &mdash;GGreeneVa 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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))

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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, &mdash; and they do &mdash; it's Cingular. &mdash;GGreeneVa 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AT&T is taking a gradual process to phase out Cingular. They are taking steps to ensure that awareness level is high that Cingular is AT&T. Currently they have a logo that merges both Cingular and AT&T logos. Slowly they will transition to the new AT&T logo that will be the sole identifier of wireless services (just another product from AT&T). They could very well also possibly alter the AT&T logo somehow to be repurposed for product specific usages (wireless section on AT&T site, etc.) with perhaps an orange element to built off the familiarity of the color orange with the Cingular brand.


 * AT&T may be taking a gradual process towards the rebranding on the consumer side but, speaking as a rep, all websites and account managment tools have been rebranded as of about a month ago. Considering that as well as the redirecting of the cingular.com website to wireless.att.com there should really be no discussion about their rebranding attempts. chrism583 11:54, 22 June 2006 (-6 CST)

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)

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))


 * Here's the problem in a nutshell (emphasis added):
 * I think i need to clear up why i chose "Wireless From AT&T" over "AT&T Wireless" or "(wireless)".
 * 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):
 * Customers will continue to see existing Cingular product and service names until all necessary legal and regulatory name-change filings are complete. The use of the AT&T and Cingular co-branded graphic will continue until customer awareness levels that Cingular has joined with AT&T are high. Once the transition ends, the color orange will continue to be associated with AT&T's wireless services, while the Cingular brand will be phased out.
 * 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 &mdash; insha'Allah &mdash; the world will not end tomorrow. &mdash;GGreeneVa 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; well before 2001.
 * Can we go ahead and fix this article, please? —GGreeneVa 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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.) &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; || talk || 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; how it came together, its marketing and slogans, its eventual denouement &mdash; in a location apart from the new AT&T Mobility, or whatever it becomes. Make sense? &mdash;GGreeneVa 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

I can agree to that. (Ke5crz 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
 * 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. &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; || talk || 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily see the post-rebranding Cingular article as all that long. It probably won't discuss products and services much at all. But Cingular itself started as a joint venture of two of the defunct companies you mentioned (SBC and BellSouth), and took over the operations of the third (old AT&T). For purposes of explaining the journey from there to here, it makes sense to keep Cingular around; it can be the main article linked above the history section for AT&T Mobility. End result: a short discussion of corporate predecessors at AT&T Mobility, underneath a pointer to the Stephen Colbert-style flowchart history &lt;/snark&gt; at Cingular. &mdash;GGreeneVa 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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:


 * 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.
 * Pro: Probably least controvertial but locking of page against moves may be necessary as so many seem to believe change has already happened.
 * 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)

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

I think cingular just decided this vote there website now reflects their new name.(Ke5crz 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC))


 * The current site says Cingular all over pretty much every page, including a "(C) Cingular Wireless, LLC" thing at the bottom. The only reference to AT&T on most pages is the "Cingular is the new at&t" rebranding logo at the top. So unless you're saying Cingular has just decided their new name is Cingular... Squiggleslash 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto Squiggleslash &mdash; the 'Jack' logo and the Cingular name show up everywhere. Unless you suggest changing the name to "The New AT&T" &mdash; nothing on the page says "Wireless from AT&T," after all &mdash; and ignoring AT&T's statement that the full legal process to effect the name change has not wrapped up (note the copyright info @ the bottom, as Squiggleslash pointed out) &mdash; we still need to fix the article, in a great big way. &mdash;GGreeneVa 14:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote on fixing article (2007-01-22)
Please record your opinion below. Most importantly is what you want the name to be at present and whether to protect it so it's not changed before further discussion. This does not imply the name change is permanent, protection is there to ensure it's changed with consensus. Let's wrap this up at midnight UT (7pm EST) Tuesday January 23rd 2007, as proposed above.

Also create new article on AT&T Mobility to describe the future enterprise. That will eventually absorb most of this article, once the name changes, and the Cingular article will become a repository of info on Cingular's history &mdash; much as Wikipedia keeps information on the other forerunners of the present-day AT&T at the articles on the former AT&T, SBC and BellSouth. &mdash;GGreeneVa 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I work for Cingular, and I gotta say even for me the matter is a grey area. We are currently answering calls as "Cingular, now the new AT&T". Also the website currently shows both the Cingular and the AT&T logo. My impression is that this is to be a more gradual tansition than most people are assuming. That said, my vote is to either *Revert to Cingular Wireless for the time being or if you really want to be completely current and up to the minute, call it Cingular, now the new AT&T until the transition to just AT&T is complete.Cris Varengo 20:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to Cingular Wireless (WP:COMMONNAME) and protect; we can discuss changing the name to some variant of AT&T when it is more appropriate to do so --Squiggleslash 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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"). &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; || talk || 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to at&t Mobility and protect we should keep the information up to date as possible. As long as Cingular Wireless redirects to the correct page we have all the bases covered. EnsRedShirt 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to Cingular Wireless and protect, pending the completion of legal formalities and other rigamarole to facilitate the official name change and retirement of the Cingular brand. We can only keep the article as up-to-date as the present; right now, AT&T calls its mobile division Cingular in public, and describes the official name change as in the future.
 * Revert to Cingular Wireless based on WP:COMMONNAME and protect from moves. Until more information is forthcoming (EDGAR filing notwithstanding), redirect "AT&T Mobility" to "Cingular Wireless".  Change "Cingular Wireless" only after it has been officially announced what, if any, new name said enterprise will have.  VCA 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to Cingular Wireless to comply with WP:COMMONNAME and protect it. AT&T Mobility should be considered as a candidate for a new page describing the future, post-merger company that will emerge over the coming months, however, even this should be done carefully given that it is not yet clear what name AT&T will use to refer to wireless services in the future. Perhaps Cingular (the New AT&T) would be a good interim name for such an article describing the post-merger company. The Wikipedia should not make news or publish rumors as fact, but report facts. Tim Butler 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to Cingular Wireless and protect from moves. Cingular Wireless is the company's current name. If and when the name changes, the article can be moved to match. Until then, it should reflect the currect reality, not a hypothetical future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Pat Berry 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yipes! Didn't realize the vote was over. That'll teach me to read more carefully. Anyway, the page reverted from Wireless from AT&T to Cingular while I was writing the above comment, so I think for now that's the right move.Cris Varengo 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote over...
I'll ask the page be switched to Cingular Wireless, and locked, given the vast majority of responses want that. Squiggleslash 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirects
Can some of the article editors please fix all double redirects here. Thanks,  Nish kid 64  01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Thanks for doing the move! Squiggleslash 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bands
According to celluloco.com Cingular operates on 850mhz frequency and 1900mhz frequency. Apparently 1900mhz frequency was acquired from the former ATT Wireless. Since 1900mhz is the standard frequency in triband phone, 850mhz is not included in triband phone, this has some major implication, namely to operate on the Cingular network, one shall really buy a quadband phone, otherwise one will only be able to access old ATT towers. Can someone confirm this? Of course, speaking about buying a phone, we are talking about buying unlocked phone from places such Nokia Store.


 * Some confusion above:
 * - AT&T Wireless had both 850 and 1900 spectrum. Cingular's original components generally did too. AT&TWS was originally a cellular company called McCaw Cellular bought by AT&T in the mid nineties. Cingular was originally a set of cellular companies owned by various Bells. All bid on PCS spectrum when it came out.
 * - Triband phones are simply phones supporting three frequencies. Some support 850/1800/1900, some 900/1800/1900, and doubtless there are other combinations. The majority of TB phones sold in the US recently support the former, the majority sold outside the US support the latter. Even T-Mobile USA's "Triband" phones are usually 850/1800/1900, despite not owning any 850MHz spectrum itself (the 850 is purely for domestic roaming.) Squiggleslash 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that article discussion pages are not the correct forum to ask for buying or product advice, but are for discussing the article at hand. Please direct such questions to the Reference Desk. Thanks! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really seeing the original question as asking for buying or product advice, so much as confirming details of Cingular's frequencies and the requirements for equipment that would be compatible with it. Squiggleslash 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PUERTO RICO
With more than 600 k subscribers Cingular is currently the largest mobile service provider in PR and USVI and has been for several years. Verizon is 2nd with about 510k —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.189.142.239 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Cingular/AT&T
How about calling the article Cingular/Wireless by AT&T until the transition is complete? 71.233.218.227 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? It's branded Cingular Wireless today, and eventually it'll change name to at&t. Let's wait until Cingular changes its name, and then change the page to what Cingular decides to call itself. I really don't understand why people are so keen on jumping the gun, let alone making up elaborate names that do not describe Cingular either today or in the future... Squiggleslash 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can vouch for what Cris Varengo posted earlier. My husband also works in one of their call centers and they got their daily methods and proceedures memo stating that are now calling themselves "Cingular, now the new AT&T." It had that exact punctuation and letter case. Confusingly, though, he got a booby prize with a nice little book on the history of AT&T and it still refers to the wireless division as plain ol' Cingular. As far as authorized third-party retailers like the big box stores, the large discounter I work for hasn't gotten any new signage or new brochures. I remember when I worked for them and they went into spin mode when an AT&T suit first let slip the dissolution of the Cingular name, there was talk of calling bundled wireless service "AT&T" and retaining "Cingular" for speciality and stand-alone wireless service. That seems to have been scuttled... Spooky Skeptic 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the important thing to keep in mind is that a slogan and a name are different. AT&T also refers to itself as "the new AT&T" sometimes, but is technically only AT&T, and I expect that it will eventually drop the "new AT&T" references altogether. I think the "Cingular, now the new AT&T" references are more on par with calling Dominos and the employee saying "It's a great day at Dominos" (not to demean Cingular operators by any means, just to note the similar type of phone answering remarks!). Charter Communications use to promote itself as "Charter Communications, a Wired World Company" too. When AT&T wants to simply refer to Cingular service, even in "new AT&T" ads, it says "Cingular" or "Cingular Wireless" in the copy primarily (e.g. the AT&T Unity ads) Tim Butler 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Name It AT&T Mobility
We should name it AT&T Mobility.--Jet123 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or what about calling it "Verizon", in anticipation of the merger between at&t and Verizon in 2011?
 * (Yes, I know, it will be rebranded soon. Whether it'll be rebranded AT&T Mobility is questionable, more likely it'll just be rebranded to "at&t" given the public statements by AT&T. Whatever the case, TODAY it's called Cingular, that's what they have blasted all over their website, ads, leaflets, and other publicity materials. Hold. On. Stop. Jumping. The. Gun. Wait. For. AT&T. To. Decide. What. They're. Going. To. Brand. The. Wireless. Division. As.) --Squiggleslash 13:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But I thought Verizon was going to grab QWEST first???? ,-) And reform it into a money making business? As far as "Mobility" you don't hear that in the USA much.  I know in Canada for example their wireless divisions are usually branded as "(Company-name) Mobility"  e.g. "Telus Mobility", "SaskTel Mobility", "Bell (Canada) Mobility" etc.

From what I've seen the "Mobility" suffix on company names is not as common in the United states but that could be an option if persons in the USA wanted to try it. CaribDigita 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) actually this article should be moved to [Wireless from AT&T]

Slogan and name changes
Currently two slogans are listed for Cingular neither of which appear to be accurate. One is "Raising the bar even higher", which I have yet to see anywhere, and the other is AT&T's.

I'd change it to "Raising the bar", but Cingular are virtually never using it any more, instead "Cingular is the new AT&T" seems to appear where-ever you'd normally see a slogan. I don't think that counts as a slogan, perhaps it's time to remove the line completely?

While I'm at it, it's very clear from Cingular's press releases that they're just going to call themselves, ultimately, AT&T, not "Wireless by AT&T" or "AT&T Mobility" (even if the latter is the legal name of the division.) While most of the Cingular website continues to be branded Cingular, AT&T brands are appearing sporadically in various places.

I wouldn't change the name of the article yet, especially not while Cingular are still calling themselves, officially, Cingular, but I think it'll be coming over the next month or two, and we'll have to deal with the name change some way other than simply renaming the current article to AT&T Mobility. If AT&T merely intends to brand the service as just another set of services from AT&T, then presumably a much greater part of the AT&T article should be devoted to the type of information you see here, with this page largely reporting the corporate profile of the AT&T Mobility entity as opposed to the products and services.

In other words, I know many people think a name change is needed, but actually, on top of that, I think a partial merger with AT&T is going to be needed too.

What do others think? --Squiggleslash 21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think for now, I'd keep "Raising the Bar," if anything. It makes some sense to note that, for the "Raising it higher" rebranding campaign only makes sense in as much as people know the slogan "Raising the Bar." I'm still seeing "More bars in more places" ads on billboards. But, removing the slogans would be better than showing "Raising it higher."


 * Regarding the page, I'd suggest once the Cingular name is dropped, if AT&T does not provide some kind of name for the division in general advertisements, calling it AT&T Mobility, with some other forwarding pages to it and a link from the main AT&T page (Cingular, AT&T (Wireless), etc.). I'd think AT&T will name it something though -- other than wireline service, they have been giving their services brands as of late (e.g. "AT&T Yahoo! High Speed" and "AT&T U-Verse" for television). Part of me thinks "AT&T Cingular" might fit into their branding scheme in a similar way, but who knows. I'm sort of wondering if even AT&T knows or if it is testing the waters of how people react to lessening usage of the Cingular name. Tim Butler 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object to me adding "Raising the Bar" back and removing "Your life. Delivered."? As Squiggleslash noted, it is the closest thing to a real Cingular slogan. If nothing else, I'd remove it completely. It doesn't really make much sense just to repeat AT&T's slogan. Tim Butler 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Mobility LLC's slogan IS "Your World. Delivered." Tbutler argues that it makes no sense to repeat it, but that is their slogan. They no longer use the "Rasing the Bar" slogan. If you are going to call the company AT&T Mobility LLC, then use the proper slogan! kungfuazn 07:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very soon, the new tag will be "Wireless from AT&T, formerly Cingular. AT&T. Your world. Delivered." Stizz 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Infobox
The corporate infobox is not the place to put d/b/a names nor f/k/a names. If f/k/a names were to go in the corporate infobox, why not put "Formerly Southwestern Bell Wireless" "Formerly BellSouth Mobility" in that infobox? After all, that's what Cingular was known as before it was formed. Cingular's true legal name is AT&T Mobility, and that is only what belongs in the infobox. Why this keeps happening to Cingular is beyond me. KansasCity 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with you WRT F/K/A names, but I think an argument can be made that D/B/A names should be acceptable, especially if the company is better known by the D/B/A name than the legal name, and even more so if the company is in the progress of transition and is legally known under both names.


 * That said, clearly this is clearly a matter of contention. Perhaps putting a box before the body of the main article that just points out that the company is currently known under both names, that the legal name is transitioning, while the company continues to trade as "Cingular Wireless", might reduce some of the confusion that people are trying to fix, and also reduce some of the "weird page edits" we're getting. If we were to do that, would those who keep changing the Infobox be willing to leave the DBA name out of it? Something like:


 * --Squiggleslash 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the above. It gives a nice, simple explanation to a matter that the general public seems to be very confused about. Moving the article or changing the name before AT&T does anything major will lead to confusion among Wikipedia users.

Article Merge
the Cingular Wireless Article should be merged with AT&T

-Mrsanitazier March 3,2007 4:00 PM ET


 * No. The wireless division is totally separate from the rest of AT&T with a completely different history. The same can be said for Verizon Wireless. KansasCity 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I agree with KC. I see reasons to move some of the information from this to the AT&T page in future, if AT&T's branding truly makes the distinction seamless, but there will always be a need for an article describing the business unit, or if that becomes obsolete (unlikely) the old Cingular for historical reasons.
 * In any case, the time to do this isn't now. Cingular today is still a separately run company, with its own branding, and while the two companies are growing closer, Cingular is clearly a distinct entity today. --Squiggleslash 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I agree with KC and Squiggleslash. Cingular remains a separate legal entity and presently still has a separate brand. At the very least, it will continue to merit its own page just as much as, say, AT&T U-Verse or AT&T's long distance service. It may however be good to have separate pages for the old, independent Cingular versus the eventual post-merger entity that will be emerging over the coming months. Tim Butler 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah but Cingular will become AT&T that is why I think this article should be merged with AT&T

-Mrsanitazier March 10,2007 6:24 PM ET


 * Cingular is part of AT&T, but it is not "AT&T." Iceberg3k 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge: I agree with Iceberg. It is not yet clear how exactly the merger will turn out in the end. Cingular may remain a separate operating company, or at least, a separately promoted division (e.g. as I already noted is the case with U-verse, etc.) Regardless, it will merit a separate page simply because it is such a major product line within the AT&T family, and has a history that is not exactly the same as AT&T (note that many other AT&T divisions have separate pages). But, first and foremost, an encyclopedia is not suppose to make news or predictions, only report facts. The facts as they stand are that right now Cingular is not integrated yet, and generally still refers to itself as Cingular in its interactions with customers. Tim Butler 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge: This article will also be long enough that it warrants its own page separate from the main AT&T page. I agree with user TBulter above. Even after the rebranding, this line will be big enough to merit its own article. AEMoreira042281 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Merge: AT&T Mobility is a product of AT&T inc. It's like merging Coca-Cola with The Coca-Cola Company. This article is about the product offered by AT&T and the AT&T article is about the corporation that offers said product.

Refocus of Article
this article focuses on cingular wireless. and the history of it, and then the merger with at&t and currently the name change. since the company is going through some transition back to the at&t name, should we refocus the articles theme; instead the article should focus on the history off at&t wireless and cingular be in the company's history. does any one agree with me? or does anyone think that we should wait until a more official name change, or wait to see if the article undergoes a name change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.201.227 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


 * No, there is no need for a "refocus". This article describes the history of the company now known as AT&T Mobility, and the history of that company belongs on this page. AT&T Wireless' history belongs on a separate page, which it has. KansasCity 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move page
The circumstances surrounding the vote about a month or two ago still apply. The company still markets itself as Cingular, and WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Please don't make us go through the process of move protecting this page again. --Squiggleslash 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New name
I'm not trying to start a move/don't move debate, but I just saw a banner ad for the SYNC phone, using the AT&T logo, and calling themselves "Wireless by AT&T, formerly Cingular" Kdupuy9 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cingular/AT&T/AT&T Mobility -- Whatever you are-- Is no longer the largest mobile carrier in the USA?
It looks like Verizon is now the largest Mobile provider in the USA according to Informationweek.com?

Article: Verizon Wireless Retakes The Lead In The U.S. Wireless Market Posted by Stephen Wellman, Apr 5, 2007 02:19 PM

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/04/verizon_wireles_3.html

[SNIP]Verizon Wireless is once again the top U.S. carrier in terms of direct retail subscribers. According to researcher IDC, Verizon jumped back to the number one position in the U.S., edging out AT&T with 56.8 million subscribers compared with AT&T's 56.3 million. Verizon also held the top spot for wireless data revenue and data percentage of average revenue per user.[/SNIP] CaribDigita 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW LOGO DROPS CINGULAR NAME
There is apparently a new logo circulating the internet that, while still using the colour orange, says simply "AT&T" and then, beneath it, "formerly Cingular"--72.86.44.23 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

This page should actually be moved to the current redirect page, AT&T Mobility. The current title of this article, AT&T Wireless LLC is inappropriate for the company, AT&T Mobility LLC, which was formerly Cingular. KansasCity 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, there seems to be a cacophony of people who will argue against any sort of change, until every phone in every store has an AT&T logo. Kevin 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither one makes sense. It should remain Cingular Wireless until the brand is phased out more. Look at their website! www.cingular.com where it tells me that Cingular has the fewest dropped calls or I can click to learn why Cingular is the largest wireless carrier in the United States. Wikipedians are just too eager to change everything. I say it should be Cingular at least until it starts calling itself something else.. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed Long overdue. (Ke5crz 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Agreed As an employee, I know for a fact that this article should be moved to AT&T Mobility LLC.  There is no longer any entity known as AT&T Wireless.


 * Just as a clarification, the new page name shall simply become "AT&T Mobility", without the "LLC". KansasCity 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with revert from the present name, Disagree with move to AT&T Mobility. The page should be reverted back to [Cingular]. It most definitely should not be AT&T Wireless since the new entity's legal name is AT&T Mobility, but until AT&T quits referring to its wireless division as Cingular and makes it clear how it will actually refer to it in advertising (not just legally), it seems to go against Wikipedia's nature to move it. I have yet to see any advertisements or stores that show the name AT&T Mobility, while there are still plenty of signs that indicate the company is doing business as Cingular. Why not wait and see what really happens? Tim Butler 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would seem that [User:Josephf] has taken the initiative to move the article to AT&T Mobility L.L.C.. AT&T refers to the division with "LLC" not "L.L.C.", so the article title should reflect that. I am currently in the process of cleaning up various redirects. TPM2006 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "LLC" should not be a part of the page title. The requested move is for the page page to be simply called "AT&T Mobility". Refer to other pages on wireless companies, such as Sprint Nextel and Alltel, which do not include "Corporation" in their page title. KansasCity 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, including the corporate suffix violates official Wikipedia policy. I'm short on time, but if someone wants to be bold and pull the limited-liability corporation designation out -- periods and all -- they'd have all the justification they need. —GGreeneVa 15:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

''I was just about to close this request, but because the current title is obviously untenable, I don't want to leave it as a no–consensus request. Please ignore the "LLC" suffix, and concentrate on reasons why the article should or should not be at "AT&T Wireless", "AT&T Mobility" or "Cingular Wireless". I have relisted the request at WP:RM in order to give the debate more time.'' --Stemonitis 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree to move to AT&T Mobility. This page does not belong at AT&T Wireless becuase that is an entirely different company from AT&T Mobility. This page should no longer be at Cingular Wireless because AT&T has effectively gone into the "beginning of the end" phase of the "Cingular" name - Cingular commercials are now saying "AT&T, the new name of Cingular", and print advertisements are saying "AT&T, formerly Cingular". KansasCity 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * AT&T Mobility seems best to me under these circumstances, and Cingular Wireless seems less than objectionable. Dekimasu よ! 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, Cingular Wireless seems best until the company is well-known under a different title. Tbutler correctly points out below that the company has not stopped calling everything "Cingular", and the site he links redirects to cingular.com. It seems like another case in which we should react rather than anticipate, so the original title seems reasonable. Dekimasu よ! 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree to move to AT&T Mobility. Lose the L.L.C. as per Wikipedia naming conventions. TPM2006 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No longer care - The Cingular/AT&T Mobility farce demonstrates how Wikipedia can fail dramatically when a bunch of people with half a fact get too enthusiastic about promoting it. The page should be restored to Cingular Wireless, until Cingular gets removed from the marketing materials, and probably should then have most of the content merged with the main AT&T article, with the AT&T Mobility page limited to corporate and historical information, but that's not going to happen because you're all too damned excited about a legal name change and a branding exercise the precise details of which are still mostly unknown. In the meantime, I propose a rename to "AT&T Wikipediaty". For now, I'll take this inane page off of my Watchlist, and recommend anyone needing information about the mobile arm of AT&T steer clear of Wikipedia. --Squiggleslash 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree move to Cingular. I agree with Squiggleslash that this is Wikipedia at its worst. Until www.att.com/wireless goes somewhere other than to a page that says clearly "Cingular" it is absolutely unsupported to call the article anything other than Cingular. Tim Butler 03:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A Note I am an AT&T (formerly BellSouth) employee with access to the 'Branding Guidelines' pages. According to them, it is now offcially 'wireless from AT&T, formerly Cingular' (yes, wireless is not capitalized).  AT&T Mobility L.L.C. is listed as a legal entity and is not to be used as a 'brand.'  Also, they are now dropping the Cingular 'Jack' (the orange x figure).  I'm not sure what exactly we should call the article at this point, but 'Cingular' has taken one more step into the brand-grave and 'AT&T Mobility L.L.C.' is not appropriate.--Donovan Ravenhull 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has been proposed to be moved to AT&T Mobility for that reason. No company uses "LLC" in its branding. This page, however, should not be merged with AT&T, nor should it be renamed Cingular Wireless. It is a distinct company within the many companies AT&T owns, which is ending its brand transition phase. For example, even though Southwestern Bell does business as AT&T Southwest does not mean that Southwestern Bell should be moved to AT&T Southwest. The same reasoning applies to AT&T Mobility. Just because the company is referred to as wireless from AT&T does not mean that should be the page name. AT&T Mobility is the most appropriate title for the page because it distinguishes the fact that it is separate from AT&T Wireless Services. KansasCity 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
editprotected Users have vandalized the page ever since the AT&T buyout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmoz2989 (talk • contribs).
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. The article has been semi-protected for 7 days. In the future, please list pages here and please sign your posts using ~ . Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Phone Centers
I think it should be mentioned within the article that by acquiring CIngular, AT&T again will be selling products and services through retail stores, like they did with their AT&T Phone Center stores in the 80s and 90s. Nate 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal 'FAQ' on the name
May 25, 2007

What is Cingular's new name?

AT&T. Wireless becomes a modifier for the service (like broadband), not the name of a division. (Our legal DBA is AT&T Mobility and is used only when legally required. It is not a name we are promoting.)

Wireless from AT&T is correct.

Why haven't you given Cingular a name?

We have. The name is AT&T — one of the most historic, iconic and admired brands in the world, widely recognized for complete communications and entertainment services.

'''How should we refer to Cingular? As AT&T wireless? Or AT&T's wireless division? '''

Wireless from AT&T.

'''When will the Cingular name be dropped completely? '''

Because the brand transition is going well and consumer awareness is high, we have moved to 'phase two' of our branding transition plans.

Transitional elements of both the AT&T and the Cingular brands will continue to be featured, but AT&T will be much more prominent to clearly communicate that AT&T is a leader in wireless.

Once recognition of AT&T as a wireless carrier is strong, we plan to fully phase out the Cingular brand.

--Donovan Ravenhull 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)