SBC to take on AT&T NAME

The circle of life...as I remember...
At my house as a kid in the early 70's it was MaBell AT&T, broken into regional telcos which was Pacific Bell, which was bought by SBC then renamed AT&T....30 years of government to get us back to the 70's....what progress...
 
mikew said:
The circle of life...as I remember...
At my house as a kid in the early 70's it was MaBell AT&T, broken into regional telcos which was Pacific Bell, which was bought by SBC then renamed AT&T....30 years of government to get us back to the 70's....what progress...

SBC was originally one of the Bells as Southwestern Bell (which is where the SBC name came from). They did acquire PacBell though.
 
Ceas2182 said:
Hey I was thinking about Cingular, Are they gonna switch it to At&t again lol.

You're right, though Cingular is owned by not just SBC but also Bell South so most likely not. But that's interesting. I guess they didn't want to brand the long-distance company Cingular.
 
SummitAdvantageRetailer said:
You're right, though Cingular is owned by not just SBC but also Bell South so most likely not. But that's interesting. I guess they didn't want to brand the long-distance company Cingular.

It may be that SBC wanted to but BellSouth refused to allow it. As part owner, they can exert rights over the Cingular trademark.
 
Well soutwestern bell is part of sbc now aparently, all work orders that get built by sbc/dish have southwestern bell sales partner on the sheet.
 
SWB IS SBC. "Southwest Bell Corporation" ;) Bellsouth is the one that's not..

I think this sucks, not just because of the "lack of progress" but because the baby bells were more fun. I miss PAC BELL (aka CRAP BELL) with their [*] icon and such *sigh*

That and AT&T wireless will be back, frankly I'd rather see AT&T broadband *smirk* they had the funniest anti-dish commercials.
 
I have a feeling that the term SBC Dish (or ATT Dish) will mean more than a simple partnership before too long. It may end up as one of SBC/ATT's services, like DSL or phone service.

We won't have Charlie to kick around anymore. But, maybe, Dish will finally offer some quality hardware.
 
You've never used cable have you :p

I'm tired of the "Dish equipment sucks" posts. If you're having stability problems, that's one thing -- that's bad quality control, at least they don't look like crap :)
 
OoTLink said:
You've never used cable have you :p
I have it right now. I really like my Comcast Motorola 6412 HD DVR.
OoTLink said:
I'm tired of the "Dish equipment sucks" posts.
There's only one solution to that. They need to stop designing and releasing such piss poor equipment.
OoTLink said:
If you're having stability problems, that's one thing -- that's bad quality control, at least they don't look like crap :)
Dish PQ is pretty decent overall. But, their locals look like crap. It's basically the same with my cable service. But, at least I get HD locals from cable.

I am really looking forward to SBC/ATT releasing their own MediaZone HW for Dish. However, I'm starting to get the feeling this ain't gonna happen unless SBC buys Dish. I can only imagine how many suitors are scared away from this by Charlie's reputation of negotiation through confrontation.
 
If your locals look like crap that's too bad, mine look great, maybe because I don't have more money than sense to buy an HDTV..

The 6412s are great but used. How's that 2nd/3rd/who knows how many hands receiver working for ya?

SBC sounds cool, though I'd rather see them startup their own dish company if they want to do that. OTOH, I'm sick and tired of all these wannabe services starting up and then either not bothering at all in making decent software for their boxes or just using Micro@(#*%&@%#..

Hehe, as for AT&T..

56790809_60ea4def07.jpg


:D

Why are cable users so damn zealous anyway? That's the second time now I've gotten a screen-full from an over defensive 6412 using customer. Really though, if I want to ignore all the other receivers out there, great.. Our two 322s have been MUCH more reliable software wise than our cable line has been (which seems to go out once a week in this town). Yes, Comcast cable at that..

The 2224 they supplied me is a piece of junk. If you want to channel surf, then you surf the channels THEY want you to surf or press the FAV button like a dummy, though it was a pain in the butt to program anyway.

The guide was slow as hell, the "flip bar" was opaque and the full width of the screen, and goes blank if you change channels too fast, and all OnDemand had was either shows I had already seen or shows I didn't really CARE to see.

The OS looked like a 16bit GUI microsoft's software "designers" whipped up in 20 seconds, and the box was about as big as 2 322s even though it was only good for 1 TV and had a whimpy MIPS32 processor.

See? I don't just care about "Picture Qualtiy" or getting a free ride on a box that I have to pay $10 a month for and get handed like it's stolen property (off the back of a white van or something) -- that part of Comcast always irritated me.

Shoot, everything even as far as the remote seemed poorly thought out and had about as much R&D put into it (IMHO) as a Dell. See?

So the comcast guy drops off a naked and well used 2200-series box and hooks it up via coax, it didn't even have S-video out -- an option comcast claims only exists on their DVRs that cost $9 a month instead of $5 PER TV not per each 2..

Shoot the first install, the guy tried to give me a used remote.. you don't know who's touched that thing! EEEWWWw

What's so wrong about the whole "user experience"? I don't just want 893247 channels with a picture so great I could stare at the screen until my eyes were fried and my brain as well and still not find any pixelation (in reality you see pixelation anyway), I want to be able to flip as fast as I want, and have a sleek little box that doesn't look like it was sitting in the adult section of a movie store or something .
 
OoTLink said:
If your locals look like crap that's too bad, mine look great, maybe because I don't have more money than sense to buy an HDTV..
I truly don't know what you are trying to say. Do you have an HDTV or not? Regardless, it has nothing to do with how Dish locals (and most analaog cable channels) look like crap. In Dish's case it is due to gross overcompression. If you think they look great, then you may have sense, but you do not have good vision.

OoTLink said:
The 6412s are great but used. How's that 2nd/3rd/who knows how many hands receiver working for ya?
I don't know. I have a new one. (It was sealed.) It's a moot point, as I am going to bring it to my local Comcast office to upgrade to the latest generation Phase III model at no charge. Try that with Dish.

OoTLink said:
SBC sounds cool, though I'd rather see them startup their own dish company if they want to do that. OTOH, I'm sick and tired of all these wannabe services starting up and then either not bothering at all in making decent software for their boxes or just using Micro@(#*%&@%#..
I can't believe you are unfamiliar with the SBC HomeZone Media Portal from 2Wire. http://www.2wire.com/?p=11

OoTLink said:
Why are cable users so damn zealous anyway? That's the second time now I've gotten a screen-full from an over defensive 6412 using customer.
Ummm. Just responding to YOUR over zealous and over defensive comment about being sick of "dish equipment sucks" comments, when no such comment was made.

And, how the f- do you define "screen full"? My "defense" was one single sentence: "I have it right now. I really like my Comcast Motorola 6412 HD DVR."

Wanna talk about a "screen full"? Did you check the length of your own post?
 
Ugh this is a problem because maybe people will forget how crappy basic SBC DSL is when it messed up.
 

811 Remote Stopped Working

D1000 signal levels??

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)