Talk:AT&T Mobility

message: The information surrounding May 19th needs looking in to.  Please see  or .
This is still on going. Pontiac36 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 19th AT&T/NASCAR 

message: 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)
thread_title: AT&T is still claming fewest dropped calls

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I didn't add those citesCwc2311 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Windows Mobile 6 Update Controversy

message: 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)
thread_title:  what are the frequencies  for ATT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who merged/bought who? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Retail Locations / Kiosks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: in the tittle it is AT&T the company refers to themselves with lowercases, if you call in wanting support, they ask if your phone has capital AT&T or lowercase at&t, the old company was capital and the new company is lowercase to show themselves different. that should be adjusted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.0.52 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo is merely cosmetic.  Practically every line of PROSE on the AT&T Web site refers to AT&T capitalized, not in lowercase.  It is a common practice in graphic design (I used to be crazy about it when I was a teenager) to goof around with capitalization of the client's name in the logo to make it look interesting, but that does not change the client's name as used in standard prose documents and legal documents.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically it's still a proper noun, so it would be capitalized, no matter what their branding department says. However, considering it is no longer an acronym, might it be At&t? Lexlex (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  at&t should be lowercase. 

message: The list of phones that are offered is ever-changing, filled with redlinks because most phones don't warrant an entire article, and unencyclopedic. I believe it should be removed. Phones of particular significance to the company and this article (iphone, n-series, etc) should be fit into the body of the article. -76.21.103.36 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of phones 

message: Besides the bloated WP:LEAD section (the union stuff doesn't appear to be covered elsewhere and thus should not even be in the lead/lede), the coverage of the NASCAR sponsorship item needs to be reduced to about a paragraph, as one issue/minor lawsuit over sponsorship should not take about about 1/10 of the article. Doing so violates WP:UNDUE. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent surgery by  Attitude2000! He's correct, though, in that it needs a little more work. Nevertheless, should we remove the  tag from the beginning? UncleBubba (Talk)  21:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I chopped up the intro, but the sheer level of detail still makes the article seem a bit like a promotional brochure. -- Beland (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up needed 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/headlines/cup/05/18/att.wins.lawsuit.ap/index.html
** In Jeff Burton on 2011-05-06 19:46:11, 404 Not Found
** In AT&T Mobility on 2011-06-20 01:05:33, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/headlines/cup/05/19/nascar.loses.stay.att.ap/index.html
** In Jeff Burton on 2011-05-06 19:46:11, 404 Not Found
** In AT&T Mobility on 2011-06-20 01:05:44, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/headlines/cup/06/17/nascar.sues.att.ap/index.html
** In Jeff Burton on 2011-05-06 19:46:11, 404 Not Found
** In AT&T Mobility on 2011-06-20 01:06:00, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: The link to subsidiary Aio Wireless is a redirect back to the AT&T Mobility page.
There should be a section for Aio, or another page in its entirety.
Jaysonwhelpley (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aio Looping Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070521164853/http://www.nascar.com:80/2007/news/headlines/cup/05/19/nascar.loses.stay.att.ap/index.html to http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/headlines/cup/05/19/nascar.loses.stay.att.ap/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070521200500/http://www.nascar.com:80/2007/news/headlines/cup/05/18/att.wins.lawsuit.ap/index.html to http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/headlines/cup/05/18/att.wins.lawsuit.ap/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131016022912/http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/iphone-frenzy-not-an-option-for-some/n20070629193909990004 to http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/iphone-frenzy-not-an-option-for-some/n20070629193909990004
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012175020/http://hosted.ap.org:80/dynamic/stories/C/CAR_NASCAR_ATT?SITE=GENERIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-09-07-14-41-18 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAR_NASCAR_ATT?SITE=GENERIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-09-07-14-41-18
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: should iden and CDMA be included? those are currently active networks in their ATT mexico division?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.2.228 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequencies used on the AT&T Network 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331124526/http://www.macblogz.com/2009/02/02/att-set-to-deploy-14-mbps-hspa-speeds-in-3rd-quarter-of-2009/ to http://www.macblogz.com/2009/02/02/att-set-to-deploy-14-mbps-hspa-speeds-in-3rd-quarter-of-2009/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/stories/2007/08/15/ibill_0815.html?imw=Y
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308050515/http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091228_366556.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091228_366556.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615062703/http://www.htc.com/us/press/pocket-sized-htc-aria-to-premiere-on-nations-fastest-3g-network/17/ to http://www.htc.com/us/press/pocket-sized-htc-aria-to-premiere-on-nations-fastest-3g-network/17
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721005606/http://www.htc.com/us/products/aria-att to http://www.htc.com/us/products/aria-att
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707183731/http://www.atrix4gsmartphone.com/att-android-phones/att-android-smartphones-motorola-htc-samsung/ to http://www.atrix4gsmartphone.com/att-android-phones/att-android-smartphones-motorola-htc-samsung/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016031638/http://www.cwa-union.org/cingular/ to http://cwa-union.org/cingular/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802155249/http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/02/24/0000950144-04-001647/Section50.asp to http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/02/24/0000950144-04-001647/Section50.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026012723/http://www.ceoworld.biz/?p=68 to http://www.ceoworld.biz/?p=68
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218141120/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/06/23/acquire.shtml to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/06/23/acquire.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202140923/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/06/24/denies.shtml to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/06/24/denies.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218140907/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/06/24/awaits.shtml to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/06/24/awaits.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404064940/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/12/21/over.shtml to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/12/21/over.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.com/article/id%2C136068/article.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on AT&T Mobility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cingular.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325143840/http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14568&hed=Cingular+to+Become+AT&%3BT to http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14568&hed=Cingular+to+Become+AT%26amp%3BT
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716132815/http://www.att.com/att/plateau/en/index.html to http://www.att.com/att/plateau/en/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328145817/https://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-BACKFLIP-with-MOTOBLUR-US-EN?localeId=33 to https://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-BACKFLIP-with-MOTOBLUR-US-EN?localeId=33
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see that this article is currently scoring 96.7% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
I am wondering if the site it identifies is plagiarising us or vice versa. It doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia as a source. I see an old message from 10 years ago above noting the same sort of thing with a different site and the link there looks very suspiciously similar (right down to the advert for "Solar Cola", whatever that might be, at the bottom) but with some differences. They both look a bit odd. I am wondering if they are each copied from different old versions of this article?
Are we happy that they are copying us and we have no copyright problems here ourselves? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 2?