Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck Technology

SBC Might Buy AT&T 204

Posted by CmdrTaco from the soon-there-will-just-be-one dept.
ChipGuy writes "SBC is in talks to buy AT&T according to Wall Street Journal and New York Times, both reporting price tag to be between $15-and-$16 billion. The news comes close on heels of SBC reported weaker earnings and 7000 job cuts. The New York Times says talks are fluid and sensitive. Wall Street Journal says, "a major acquisition would speak to SBC Chief Executive Edward Whitacre Jr.'s aim of turning the company into a national brand and his desire to do at least one final deal before he retires." Om Malik writes that "buying AT&T will make sense for anyone, and not just SBC. Why? Because AT&T still is the only game in the enterprise markets. MCI is hurting and Sprint clearly wants to focus on wireless. That leaves AT&T in a pretty good shape.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SBC Might Buy AT&T More

SBC Might Buy AT&T

Comments Filter:

  • AT&T is such a whore (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's been bought and sold so many times.

  • Breaking up... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:22PM (#11495884) Homepage
    "Let's break up Ma Bell so that some 20 years later they will all merge back together to become an even more powerful and unstoppable force."

    • Re:Breaking up... (Score:2, Redundant)

      by TrippTDF ( 513419 )
      "Let's break up Ma Bell so that some 20 years later they will all merge back together to become an even more powerful and unstoppable force."

      Doesn't this put SBC dangerously close to becoming a monopoly, not unlike what AT&T was, some 20 years ago?
      • That would be the case, if long-distance and land lines were the monopoly that they once were...

        but since AT&T sold off their wireless portion...

        • Re:Breaking up... (Score:3, Informative)

          by Laterite ( 522328 )
          " That would be the case, if long-distance and land lines were the monopoly that they once were... but since AT&T sold off their wireless portion..." SBC runs a joint venture with BellSouth called Cingular Wireless...which just bought At&T Wireless, which was spun off from AT&T...which was busted up 20 years ago to form SBC, BellSouth, etc. etc. yadda yadda... -Mark
          • Land lines arguably still hold market power for local service. Combining that with wireless, etc. and it is possible that we will see a return of Ma Bell....

            • Land lines arguably still hold market power for local service. Combining that with wireless, etc. and it is possible that we will see a return of Ma Bell....

              Which raises an interesting question: Are there some services where a government-regulated monopoly is the best choice? I mean, if the government broke up AT&T to let the market decide, and the market is re-consolidating, isn't that an argument against a pure laissez faire domestic policy?
              (And that's not even taking into account the government i

      • No. Verizon Communications is currently bigger than SBC, and if SBC bought AT&T they would be about the same size. Hardly a monopoly.
        • Not really. Each generally has a monopoly in regional markets. I.e. I cannot get SBC land lines here in Chelan, WA, though thanks to the County, there is competition over our fiber network (I use a local telecom called Localtel).

          In Bellevue, WA, however, Verizon is the only source of land lines.
      • Sure, but the DOJ doesn't care. And they won't care when it becomes MS-SBC either.
      • That was kind of my point, actually.

        All of the current day Telecos are more or less the children of the Ma Bell breakup anyway.
        • All of the modern ILECs maybe, but the CLECs are mostly newbies on the telecommunications market. I know. I work for the largest CLEC based in the south-east and the company as a whole isn't even 10 years old.
    • Good lord, it's just like Cell from Dragonball Z! Quick, get your magic beans! You'll need them to win THIS fight (and every other one) The great teachings of anime have shown us the answer. Instead of just breaking it up, we need to use FEELINGS and get really angry.
    • You're right, at the current rate, there's just going to be another megaconglomerate. Luckily, the feds will have learned from their past mistakes, and know what to do next time this happens. What is this solution? Break them into smaller pieces, of course!
    • never has this translation error turned joke applied more.
    • Check out the Fall 2004 cover for 2600 magazine. Is that prophetic or what?

      http://www.2600.com/covers/covers.html [2600.com]

    • Terminator 2 ... (Score:4, Funny)

      by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:45PM (#11496146) Homepage Journal
      This has been happening for a while ... I've always likened it to the scene in T2 where the bad robot is dropped in liquid nitrogen and shatters .... then slowly we see all the drops start to flow together to remake the evil robot again ....

  • And... (Score:5, Funny)

    by webword ( 82711 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:23PM (#11495892) Homepage
    I might buy AT&T too. I love speculation. Who else might buy AT&T? Are you thinking about it? Raise your hand if you are thinking about anything else.

    • There is NO chance you might buy AT&T, as you dont have anything near 16bil. SBC well, does have the power to do so. You go ahead and tell us you might, Im sure you can stuff all its employees into your mom's basement.

  • Could see more like this in the future (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chris09876 ( 643289 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:24PM (#11495909)
    I wonder if this is just a sign to come. With things like the internet (skype?) hurting the traditional phone companie's revenue streams, and with the slow but steady emergence of VoIP, the big phone companies days are numbered. They will still have a purpose, of course, but they'll have to learn to be more competitive in a more competitive industry.
    • Or they can hire dozens of lawyers/lobbyists to have the government give them subsidies like every other large inefficient industry!
    • I have two words for you: entertainment industry.

      You don't need to be competitive to survive these days. Just big enough to afford expensive lawyers.

      And as an aside, the big phone companies aren't going away. Not now, not ever. It costs money to run a network - yes, even a VoIP network. And if you actually want to be able to just pick up a phone and talk to anyone you please without needing to ensure that you (on tiny carrier A) can actually connect to you friend (on tiny carrier B) first.

      Sorting out int
      • Yeah, the phone companies aren't going away. Like I said in my initial post, "They will still have a purpose". But that doesn't mean that they can continue charging ridiculously high rates. You're absolutely right that it does cost money to run a network. But the rates they're charging now cover that cost probably 100 or 1000 times over. In Canada, wireless rates are even worse. With Rogers, it costs $90/month to get "unlimited" (25 MB?) voice+data service for a mobile device. Whatever the cost of th
    • First of all, Skype isn't a serious competitor with the traditional telcos. Vonage steals way more business than Skype does, and even that is probably a small blip on the radar.

      Secondly, Skype and Vonage both rely on you having a broadband Internet connection, which half the people are paying the telcos for anyway. Comcast and Time Warner cable modems are a much bigger threat to telco profits than Skype and Vonage.

      And finally, the bulk of the people who are giving up landlines are giving them up in favor

    • Don't count the Bells out just yet (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:57PM (#11496262)
      ...With things like the internet (skype?) hurting the traditional phone companie's revenue streams, and with the slow but steady emergence of VoIP, the big phone companies days are numbered.

      Maybe but I doubt it. True, the days of POTS as a cash cow probably are numbered, though we could argue about exactly how much time the have left. But that hardly makes SBC, Verizon and the rest helpless. Someone still needs to deliver a connection to the curb. Despite increasing comptition from cable companies and wireless, the Baby Bells do have a large installed network that isn't easy to replace. Yeah, margins will get squeezed but someone will have to maintain that wire and there is money to be made there.

      VOIP is still in its infancy (I say this as somone who uses Vonage daily and likes it) and needs easier installation and greater reliability before it replaces POTS to a large degree. Businesses will probably adopt it earlier but residences are going to take a while. Yes, it VOIP is the future but it's going to take a while and there's nothing preventing SBC and the rest from getting into that business.

      As for wireless, SBC and Verizon are the #1 and #2 wireless providers in the US. Both are well positioned there. WiMax/WiFi is a potential threat in that it could make the last mile problem easier, but someone still has to provide the back end for that traffic and it isn't without its problems. (security, frequency crowding, availibility, speed, etc) And again, there is nothing preventing the Bells from competing here either.

      So yes, SBC and the rest have their work cut out for them, but I wouldn't bet against them at this point. We're likely to see further consolidation as telecomunications becomes more and more of a commodity business but that doesn't imply that the Baby Bells are going to disappear any time soon. Change? Yes. Disappear. Doubt it.
    • If the goverment doesn't over regulate VoIP, there should still be enough competition to make up for the monopoly. It might even help push things like ENUM to allow us to start to truely break free.
  • Isn't this illegal? Isn't the Baby Bells and AT&T supposed to stay separate?

  • So here's how I see it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:25PM (#11495919)
    Step 1: Reuinite the Bells Step 2: Use uber resources to roll out fiber (which they apparently don't have to share like their copper) Step 3: Regain monopoly

  • from marketwatch (Score:4, Interesting)

    by greechneb ( 574646 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:27PM (#11495935) Journal
    Under such a scenario, pressure would likely intensify on SBC rivals Verizon and BellSouth to obtain bigger access to the corporate-services market, probably through an acquisition of MCI Inc. Shares of MCI rose 71 cents to $19.37.

    Sounds like everyone wants to play...

  • I work for MCI. Color me curious.

  • More evidence... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:29PM (#11495975) Homepage Journal
    The SBC homepage [sbc.com] carries this string, which could be a hidden clue to the upcoming buyout:

    ALT="To all AT&T customers: we're here to stay" WIDTH="426" HEIGHT="60" BORDER="0" HSPACE="14" VSPACE="6"

    Heck, I might even report this to the Register and get quoted as an "eagle eyed reader" like this guy did [slashdot.org].

  • Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is the 1984 break-up [wikipedia.org]. Any chance the feds might want to stand in the way of this acquisition?

    The second thing to come to mind?
    "We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I met you I was but the learner. Now, *I* am the master. "

  • Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Octagon Most ( 522688 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:29PM (#11495980)
    Before we get into it about rebuilding the hated Ma Bell of yesteryear, keep this in perspective. SBC is right now one of the four remaining RBOCs, or Baby Bells, formed from the divestiture of AT&T (the original national phone monopoly) in 1984. The RBOCs already provide national long distance service (opened to them following the Telecommunications Act of 1996). AT&T is mostly a pure long distance and data network (WAN) player these days. The Bells have to have network-sharing agreements to provide national LD service. Qwest has an extensive fiber LD network though. So this potential acquisition would add a national long distance and data network to an incumbent local service provider and give it a huge presence in the enterprise market. It would not create a new national phone monopoly or be the Son of Ma Bell. They would be a formidable competitor though.

    • Re:Perspective (Score:4, Informative)

      by xs650 ( 741277 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:40PM (#11496092)
      "Before we get into it about rebuilding the hated Ma Bell of yesteryear, keep this in perspective. SBC is right now one of the four remaining RBOCs, or Baby Bells, formed from the divestiture of AT&T (the original national phone monopoly) in 1984."

      SBC contains more than one Baby Bell. It already has at least SW Bell, Pacific Telephone and Bell of Nevada in it's belly.

      • Re:Perspective (Score:3, Informative)

        by Octagon Most ( 522688 )
        "SBC contains more than one Baby Bell. It already has at least SW Bell, Pacific Telephone and Bell of Nevada in it's belly."

        Actually Southwestern Bell bought two peers, Pacific Telesys (PacTel) and Ameritech. Then they bought SNET to stretch from coast to coast - southeast to northeast. I believe they are the biggest by geography, but Verizon is larger by users and revenue. BellSouth is the only remaining Baby Bell in its original form. The others merged with themselves and other independent phone comp
        • I thought Qworst (Quest) was Ameritech.

          The original 7:

          NYNEX
          Pacific Telesis
          Bell South
          Southwest Bell
          Ameritech
          Bell Atlantic
          US West

          Isn't it:

          Qwest = US West & Ameritech
          SBC = Southwest Bell & Pacific Telesis
          Verizon = NYNEX & Bell Atlantic
          BellSouth = unchanged
          • I remember an "Illinois Bell" before "Ameritech" came along, but I don't know whether Illinois Bell was ever a totally separate company or if it was always federated with its Ameritech peers. Here [scripophily.net]is some interesting information on the old Bell system and where they went after the break-up.

        • BellSouth is the only remaining Baby Bell in its original form.

          BellSouth was called Southern Bell until a few years ago, when they renamed to drop the stereotypical slow Southern image (get it? Southern Belle? :( ) A lot of people still write "Southern Bell" on their checks when they pay their bill...

          Southern Bell itself originally held only 4 states, and merged with South-Central Bell (5 states) shortly after divestiture. So, no, none of the Bells exist in their original form, although BellSouth is the

  • Why? (Score:4, Informative)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:30PM (#11495983) Homepage
    Why would you, as SBC, be looking to put out more cash, if you just LOST cash last reporting period?

    This must be that business sense i hear so much about.

    Not only that, but as an AT&T customer, I'd be scared. SBC is, with the possible exception of CompUSA, the worst company I have to deal with day in and day out. Their tech support is a fucking joke, and their products and services are medocre at best.

    Aside from that, do these mega-mergers ever actually, you know, work? Timewarner-AOL, HP Compaq?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:41PM (#11496104) Homepage
      Here's a treat for you from SBC customer service.

      I have comcast cable and I use vonage for phone service. Comcast just raised their rates, and I decided that I dont want to pay that much anymore and my friends dsl speeds are about the same for much less. So I call SBC and click though all the menu's to get to sales. I ask about dsl. She asks my address, my name and my phone number. I give her all 3. She informs me that my number is not under their service. I tell her that I use voice over IP, but I would be willing to get their local phone service if I can get DSL. She said they can't check to see if I can get dsl without me first getting phone service!

      So we go round and round about this. I ask what the cheaps phone service I can get is, and we go round and round about that. Can't not choose a long distance carrier, you are charged more for not picking a package deal thing, etc. Finally, I decide you can't get a phone for less then 40.00 a month, and on top of that, because I've never been a customer they want a 150.00 deposit.

      So I said screw it. I just canceled my expanded cable package and kept basic cable and cable internet. I'll use BT to get the shows I miss.

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        by dukerobillard ( 582741 )
        She said they can't check to see if I can get dsl without me first getting phone service!

        Although it's lame, that's because they don't know where your line will terminate if you don't have a line. Your DSL eligibility depends on which CO you go to, and how far from that CO you are. Without having a line to check, they don't really know where you are.

        • Not sure if this is related to not having a line to check or not, but I called speakeasy and they said I only qualify for sdsl (384/384) for like 120.00 a month. Still not a option to replace cable, but at least I got an answer out of them.
          • With sdsl, they're run a line to you which they know will handle the data. That's why it costs so much, and why they can tell you it'll work.

            You could also buy a T1; your phone company will be able to tell you how much that would cost. :-)

    • I'd be scared out of my mind as well. SBC internet service seems to be largely region dependant (Some geographic areas appaear to have no/fewer problems, in others it's horrible) with the only uniformity being crap customer service, the only difference being how often you have to deal with it.

      Being as i'm not in industry right now, I don't personally have any experience dealing with AT&T's enterprise offerings but they HAVE to be better than SBC.

    • Why Not? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @04:10PM (#11496474)
      Why would you, as SBC, be looking to put out more cash, if you just LOST cash last reporting period?

      Depends on why they lost money and what sort of a deal they can get. One down quarter isn't necessarily a big deal. AT&T has a real gem of an asset in their enterprise business and another in their network which I'm sure is why SBC is interested. They've talked before about a merger. BellSouth did too a few years back. But AT&T also has a lot of debt and some rapidly sinking businesses. SBC would have to rework or get rid of this debt for the merger to happen. But if SBC can get a sweetheart deal, it might make sense.

      Personally, I think the deal is probably a bad idea. As I mentioned before, AT&T's debt load is a problem. There also are competitive issues. The merger could jeapordize SBC's relationship with BellSouth which jointly owns Cingular with SBC. Plus there is the question of whether it can pass regulatory scrutiny; something that is by no means assured. I don't see any obvious way to fix AT&T's problems but I don't have all the facts either.

  • another "deal for the hell of it" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "a major acquisition would speak to SBC Chief Executive Edward Whitacre Jr.'s aim of turning the company into a national brand and his desire to do at least one final deal before he retires."

    Let us hope he dies first.

  • just about money? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mdmarkus ( 522132 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:31PM (#11496000)
    and his desire to do at least one final deal before he retires

    People always tell me that business leaders make their decisions based on hard facts and money. They're just as driven by vanity and shiny new things as the geeks are. They're just less honest with themselves ab't it...
    • People always tell me that business leaders make their decisions based on hard facts and money.

      Business leaders want to have big reputations, because a big reputation strokes the ego and leads to more money. That's a hard fact.

      They're just as driven by vanity and shiny new things as the geeks are.

      That's another hard fact. So, we're in agreement: business leaders make their decisions based on hard facts and money.

      The hard facts are that the officers of large public corporations can make more mone

    • well met.

      not everyone is quiet about it. see donald trump, jack welch, larry ellison, etc.

  • Shameful... (Score:1, Informative)

    by SmokeHalo ( 783772 )
    ...that they can announce 7K job cuts and then start making a play for a $15 billion+ acquisition.

  • Need 1 More Purchase: Lucent (& Bell Labs) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:36PM (#11496059) Homepage
    I am not one to wax nostalgic for technology companies, but I feel that, in the interest of national security, SBC's CEO (Edward Whitacre, Jr.) should do 1 more purchase after AT&T. SBC should buy Lucent, which includes its famed Bell labs that produced more nobel prizes than any other industrial lab. Unfortunately, Lucent cannot really financially support Bell labs and has floated the idea of transferring it to the research triangle in North Carolina, consisting of Duke University, UC-Raleigh, and one other university. As well, I would not want Bell Labs to fall into the hands of, say, Ecoma Enterprises; Ecoma is a Taiwanese company that Washington has penalized (according to page 133 of "The Federal Register" for 2005 January) for assisting Iran in building better missiles with nuclear capability.

    Anyhow, the telecommunications industry has changed dramatically since the breakup of AT&T, and the rationale for the breakup no longer exists. These days, cell phones are prevalent; competitors easily enter the market for cell phones, which can be used for local and long-distance calls. A re-united AT&T (SBC + Pacbell, which was purchases by SBC, + AT&T + Lucent, which includes Bell Labs) would not pose a monopolistic threat. Heck, a re-united AT&T would be no more monopolistic than Micro$oft.

    Note that even the Internet poses additional competition in the telecommunication market. Many people use the Internet, via VOIP, to make telephone calls although they may not realize that their call is being routed via IP packets.

    • Heck, a re-united AT&T would be no more monopolistic than Micro$oft.

      That's like saying that Microsoft is no more evil than Satan [google.com], or maybe it's like saying something's no hotter than the sun [alternativescience.com]. Or no colder than absolute zero [wikipedia.org]

      Experience tells us, and MS's court records confirm, that MS is a particularly nasty, convicted monopolist. No worse than that is faint praise indeed.

    • the research triangle in North Carolina, consisting of Duke University, UC-Raleigh, and one other university

      UC-Raleigh? You must be a Californian. I mean, even if you completely ignore sports you've surely heard of a guy named Michael Jordan (no not that one [berkeley.edu]). It's UNC. Adding the qualifier Chapel Hill is even a little pedantic. Also, the other school you were looking for is NC State.
    • I'd rather see them merge with Agilent, at least that way they'd have someone to commiserate with about the destructive short-term thinking so prevalent in the business world. Oh, and how Carly Fiorina is a total fuckwit but nobody can say it for fear of being labeled a sexist.
    • if one of the RBOCs buys lucent, they're in for a surprise. ATT/lucent fell off a lot of RBOC purchase lists when ATT started getting aggressive about stealing customers from the bells.

      imagine it this way... lucent knows what your internal network is, because they bid it and coordinated designing it, when you bought their switches. they know it to the turns of the bolts that hold it to the rack, because likely as not, you outsourced the keeping of the switches to lucent field suppport. and now, a compet
  • Well, that's easy. They'll buy AT&T for $13,824,458,752.
  • Well, a subsidiary (Cingular) "merged" -- more or less the same thing. A great day for me, as I have Cingular but live in a house only covered by AT&T.
  • 1) Break-up AT&T
    2) Destroy Bell Labs
    3) Re-assemble AT&T
    4) Profit??
  • This would be one interesting acquisition if it did happen, if for nothing else reuniting AT&T with one of its spinoff companies. AT&T has a lot of assets (well those that it hasn't sold off) mostly tons of fiber in the ground, not just in the U.S. but internationally as well.

    AT&T is sort of caught in the middle of things, they have a failed local business, long distance is dieing (if it's not dead already), and a highly competitive market place for IP services. What else does AT&T have t

  • Sounds like a Dot com bussiness plan.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @03:46PM (#11496159)
    1) Lose money
    2) Spend lots of money for a company losing even more money
    3) ?????

    4) profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • I'd mod you up if I have the privs. These guys are getting clobbered by voip and seem to be doing nothing about it. Lower prices. Give me voice mailboxes. Give me free caller id. Instead of buying AT&T spend the money and run fiber to homes. Provide tv services.
      • I've known serveral people who have worked for ATT in the last 10 years in alot of different capacities. ATT has made one inept decision after another and thrown billions away (comcast anyone) They have been circling the toliet bowl of death for several years..... they are one flush away from being broken up into pieces and sold away for cash...

        Truly disgusting. They have outsourced massivly to india the supposed paneca of profit, cut your labor costs to the bone and everything will be ok!!! They stil
      • As an SBC employee, I can tell you that they are running fiber to homes, which you must understand takes time, and they are offerring tv servicees right now via Dish Network.
        That said, we're all kind of scratching our heads at the layoffs in conjunction with aquisition rumors. SBC is currently trying to get a foothold in the VOIP market before it leaves them behind, so I guess devouring AT&T would be a logical move.

  • IOW (Score:2)

    by uradu ( 10768 )
    > The New York Times says talks are fluid and sensitive.

    IOW, there's a lot of spitting and cursing.
  • I read that as "SCO might buy AT&T"

  • What a bad idea! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @04:20PM (#11496642)
    AT&T is, alas, a sad shadow of its former self, and by that I mean its post-divestiture former self. But it is still a significant competitor, both the largest long distance company (a declining-revenue market, to be sure) and a significant local player (its TCG is a big player in metro fiber). Plus they've got some ISP operations. It would be sad to see Ed's Evil Empire get a hold of them.

    Ed Whittacre wants them for the same reason he bought SNET and AT&T Wireless (which was not owned by AT&T at the time) -- he's constantly trying to be bigger than Verizon. I call it a "P.D." contest, where "D." stands for Dimensions. Frank Zappa had a song by that name, in case you can't guess what the dick I'm talking about. ;-) If he gets AT&T, he feels his P. is again bigger than that of Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon (or especially Ivan's predecessor Ray Smith, whose ghost hangs over the place).

    AT&T's core problem is that they are operating in highly competitive markets, and their internal culture grew up in a monpopoly and never adapted. SBC, on the other hand, is, uh, well, if the question is acting competitive, they're like asking a tropical fish to be a downhill ski instructor. Without monpopoly power, SBC is dead meat.

  • AT&T Wireless and the rest of AT&T... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Trinity-Infinity ( 91335 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @04:25PM (#11496732) Homepage
    Cingular already bought AT&T Wireless. For SBC (40% owner of Cingular) to buy the remainder of AT&T would be a smart move on their part. It's my impression they're doing it for access to the marketshare rather than any infrastructure or technology they have. What SBC wants is more customers, this is a very direct way to do it.

    I do wonder if this will mean SBC can sell local service beyond the 13 state region they are currently in?
    • "I do wonder if this will mean SBC can sell local service beyond the 13 state region they are currently in?"

      Actually they can already. SBC has a CLEC license which means that they can buy local lines at wholesale prices from the other ILECs (the incumbents that own the lines). This was previously through the "unbundled network element" provision of the Telecom Act of 1996. But that is no longer in force which is the reason AT&T is leaving the consumer CLEC (competitive local exchange carrier) busin
    • AT&T Wireless was AT&T in name only as they spun it off in 1999. The company was just paying a fee to use the name. For a small period of time some people thought that this may prompt AT&T to get back in the game again but if this is true its unlikely now.
  • I don't think Lucent owns Bell Labs. I believe Bell Labs was owned by SAIC and operated under the Telcordia name.
    Recent press release:
    SAIC SIGNS AGREEMENT TO SELL TELCORDIA TO PROVIDENCE EQUITY AND WARBURG PINCUS

    If SBC does take over AT&T, they need to keep the AT&T name and the deathstar symbol. Please don't adopt a really stupid name, like, say, Verizon. BELL ATLANTIC FOREVER!

    • Re:Bell Labs? Lucent? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CPUGuy ( 676781 )
      Lucent Technologies is the spinoff company that was formed from Bell Labs.

      I think this would be great. Yes, it may create another monopoly, but also a highly regulated monopoly, also a monopoly that has fierce competition from the wireless market (something that didn't really exist when the breakup occured). It may also bring us back Bell Labs, which was by far the best research group in history (my opinion, of course).

      If the merger were to go well, I think it will be a great step forward in the markets
  • Better for everyone except the customers. Somehow we seem to keep getting lost in all of this. Honestly, I don't see how allowing that Southern Boys' Club otherwise known as SBC to become even more all-encompassing can be construed as a "good thing" to anyone but the upper management of SBC and AT&T. Give me a month's pay for one of those guys and I could probably retire early.

    But, if you're going to commit an antitrust violation of potentially Biblical proportions, best to do it during the balance
  • AT&T was supposed to be the valuable part of the Bell System after the breakup. Freed from regulation, they would be the most powerful communications company in the world. The local operating companies, derided as "WACOs" (Wire and Cable Operators") were stuck with all the old, obsolete plant.

    That has totally turned around. The valuable part of the deal turned out to be the local wire monopoly. Being #1 in a competitive long distance market turned out to be of minor value.

  • Universal free communication (Score:3, Interesting)

    by letdinosaursdie ( 809029 ) on Thursday January 27, 2005 @07:40PM (#11498985) Homepage
    If we can get the corporations out of our airwaves and build wireless mesh networks, we won't have to worry about monopolies. That should be the goal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close