Results 16 to 30 of 39
- 02-01-2005, 02:08 PM #16Steve SobolGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
Jack Zwick wrote:
> We don't know if they would have as they were resorbed back into Sprint,
> and there finances aren't fully independantly reported anymore.
While there is some truth to your statement, if they were in financial trouble,
you'd still know. At this point, long distance isn't a big part of any telco's
long-term plans for revenue; it's a commodity that can be bought wholesale for
a couple cents per minute. That leaves Sprint with Internet services, landlines
through its United Telephone subsidiary and wireless. Believe me, if Sprint PCS
was in bad enough shape to risk going out of business, it would be driving down
revenue numbers for the rest of the company and we'd all have heard about it.
> Meanwhile with SBC trying to buy AT&T, word on Wall Street is that
> Verizon and Bell South will now chose up between MCI and Sprint, so each
> can have their own long distance set up. So Verizon tries to buy Sprint,
> and FTC makes it spin off SprintPCS to allow the merger, and then
> SprintPCS will again have to honestly report its finances.
Wouldn't care to bet money on that, would you?
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
› See More: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
- 02-01-2005, 07:35 PM #17N9WOSGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
> The breakup was 21 years ago. Get over it, already ...or become a
> "ZWICK".
There is only a hand full of companies that have had to put up with half
the crap that AT&T has had to put up with over the years.
They have been the preverbal whipping dog
of the government regulators for years..
A few whackos in the public saying that big business it getting to big
again.
What do they do.... Why it's obvious, make AT&T give another lung.
Or should it be a kidney this time..
They leave all the other crocked businesses alone
that giving them under the table money,
But they beat the crap out of poor old AT&T again.
(Now it's Microsoft's turn.)
AT&T is one of the few companies that gained national dominance
the old fashioned way.
THEY EARNED IT.
I guess that's why the regulators went after them.
AT&T was getting all that money,
and the regulators were not getting their "fair" share.
I could see the first break up, but I find the constant hacking at,
and dismemberment of AT&T in the following years after that,
to be totally disgraceful.
AT&T was so use to it, that they didn't even resist any more.
You want a kidney (lucent), here, you can have it.
You want to chop off my ears (wireless), I'll help you.
You want my fingers (cable) I'll hold them on the chopping block for you.
All that while they had to compete against other companies
that were using imaginary accounting practices.
AT&T is one of the few companies that has earned the right to
send a goon squad up to capital hill, and have them pull the
government officials, in question, out into the streets,
and give them a public A$$ kicking.
- 02-01-2005, 07:59 PM #18Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
In article <[email protected]>,
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The breakup was 21 years ago. Get over it, already ...or become a
> > "ZWICK".
> There is only a hand full of companies that have had to put up with half
> the crap that AT&T has had to put up with over the years.
>
> They have been the preverbal whipping dog
> of the government regulators for years..
>
> A few whackos in the public saying that big business it getting to big
> again.
> What do they do.... Why it's obvious, make AT&T give another lung.
> Or should it be a kidney this time..
>
> They leave all the other crocked businesses alone
> that giving them under the table money,
> But they beat the crap out of poor old AT&T again.
> (Now it's Microsoft's turn.)
>
> AT&T is one of the few companies that gained national dominance
> the old fashioned way.
> THEY EARNED IT.
>
> I guess that's why the regulators went after them.
> AT&T was getting all that money,
> and the regulators were not getting their "fair" share.
>
> I could see the first break up, but I find the constant hacking at,
> and dismemberment of AT&T in the following years after that,
> to be totally disgraceful.
> AT&T was so use to it, that they didn't even resist any more.
> You want a kidney (lucent), here, you can have it.
Nobody forced AT&T to spin off Lucent.
> You want to chop off my ears (wireless), I'll help you.
AT&T made a bundle spinning off wireless.
> You want my fingers (cable) I'll hold them on the chopping block for you.
Nobody forced AT&T to buy Cable at its peak and sell later losing
Billions.
>
> All that while they had to compete against other companies
> that were using imaginary accounting practices.
MCI was certainly guilty, but AT&T was a shadow of its former self by
1998.
>
> AT&T is one of the few companies that has earned the right to
> send a goon squad up to capital hill, and have them pull the
> government officials, in question, out into the streets,
> and give them a public A$$ kicking.
- 02-01-2005, 08:25 PM #19Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Bob::Remembering when it was predicted that SPCS would go belly up last
> > year 14 months ago::
>
> We don't know if they would have as they were resorbed back into Sprint,
> and there finances aren't fully independantly reported anymore.
They were always a part of Sprint, and all of their numbers are still
provided as they were in the past.
>
> Meanwhile with SBC trying to buy AT&T, word on Wall Street is that
> Verizon and Bell South will now chose up between MCI and Sprint, so each
> can have their own long distance set up. So Verizon tries to buy Sprint,
> and FTC makes it spin off SprintPCS to allow the merger, and then
> SprintPCS will again have to honestly report its finances.
Nobody would buy Sprint to spin off the PCS division. Its the only division
that will be making money in five years. Besides, I don't think anybody is
real eager to drop $1B into the Nextel coffers to buy Sprint.
- 02-01-2005, 09:02 PM #20N9WOSGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
> Nobody forced AT&T to spin off Lucent.
You totally missed the entire point of my post.
The regulatory groups was already firing warning shots.
The normal "concerns" about market share and other trash.
The same thing that happened last time.
ATT knew that if it didn't start peacefully divesting some stuff,
That the regulatory department would do if forcefully.
> AT&T made a bundle spinning off wireless.
And you can sell your legs for a good profit too.
There is many people that would pay
a good sum for a good pair of legs.
I'm sure it would be quite profitable.
It would be insane, but it would be profitable at that time.
The losses to the company that those sales caused over the years,
is many times the price that they sold them for.
They knew it was insanity, but the prospects of fighting
the government again would have been even worse.
Like lucent.
ATT went about trying to rebuild the hole that lucent left.
(AT&T labs)
To a large extent, they were successful.
Especially when you consider the hardware rights that went with lucent.
It's cost AT&T more to rebuild the hole that lucent left,
than they got off of divesting lucent.
There is two types of people make those types of sacrifices.
Insane people.
Or sane people that have a knife to their throat.
- 02-02-2005, 08:49 AM #21Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
In article <[email protected]>,
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nobody forced AT&T to spin off Lucent.
>
> You totally missed the entire point of my post.
> The regulatory groups was already firing warning shots.
> The normal "concerns" about market share and other trash.
> The same thing that happened last time.
> ATT knew that if it didn't start peacefully divesting some stuff,
> That the regulatory department would do if forcefully.
>
> > AT&T made a bundle spinning off wireless.
>
> And you can sell your legs for a good profit too.
> There is many people that would pay
> a good sum for a good pair of legs.
> I'm sure it would be quite profitable.
> It would be insane, but it would be profitable at that time.
No other carrier sold off their wireless.
- 02-02-2005, 10:48 AM #22N9WOSGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
> No other carrier sold off their wireless.
(Bangs head on table).. Why me....
- 02-02-2005, 10:57 AM #23Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
In article <[email protected]>,
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No other carrier sold off their wireless.
>
>
> (Bangs head on table).. Why me....
The rest of the world is not apologizing for AT&T.
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=/usatoday/200
50201/cm_usatoday/atampthangsupandfewaresorrytosaygoodbye>
"AT&T hangs up - and few are sorry to say goodbye"
- 02-02-2005, 12:45 PM #24N9WOSGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
> The rest of the world is not apologizing for AT&T.
>
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=/usatoday/200
> 50201/cm_usatoday/atampthangsupandfewaresorrytosaygoodbye>
>
> "AT&T hangs up - and few are sorry to say goodbye"
Read some of the replies.
-------------------------------------------
Not much of an innovator?
by: texas_dubbya_marshall (M/on my horse) 02/01/05 08:07 am
Msg: 7 of 138
15 recommendations
>> Not since its early days has it been much of an innovator.
the author of this piece is obviously in his 20's ... i think he may have
forgotten the discovery of the transistor, big bang theory, lasers, optical
communications, data networking, communication satellites, digital signal
processing, unix, the 'c' programming language, and untold number of
patents, technical publications, and secondary business/industries that have
all source from this once great company.
bell labs used to be the preeminent technology research facility in the
world. at&t as a monopoly is only responsible for most of the current
terrestrial phone network in the usa.
but, according to this piece, they've obviously been sitting on their hands
all this time.
http://www.bell-labs.com/history/75/changedworld.html
--------------------------------------------
Re: Good Riddance
by: eyelielikearug 02/01/05 08:24 am
Msg: 15 of 138
1 recommendation
>> I have nothing good to say about this company.
if you have nothing good to say ... you obviously don't know much about
them. although they have had serious issues w/ competition lately ... this
company was one of only a handful on a short list that has made this country
great.
unrivaled job security until the breakup, innovation that may still be
unchallenged, and a phone network serving nearly every household across the
usa (including some w/o running water and electricity).
Posted as a reply to: Msg 2 by rentaprogrammer
------------------------------------------------
Re: Not much of an innovator?
by: bokske (31/M/Antwerpen, Belgium) 02/01/05 09:07 am
Msg: 20 of 138
I'm glad that somebody wrote this reply.
While I can't comment on the quality of AT&T's service to customers, it
strikes me as a baffling lie to describe AT&T as "not an innovator". An
author who is unaware of the technical prestige of the former Bell Labs
should not be writing telecom editorials.
Perhaps AT&T has, thoughout the years, focused
too much on innovation and too little on basic customer-friendliness. But
without everything that this company did for the IT sector, there might
never have been much of a dot-com boom.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 7 by texas_dubbya_marshall
-----------------------------------------------------
Phone rates
by: ladybugsgrany 02/01/05 09:39 am
Msg: 21 of 138
You all complain but do any of your remember what your Phone bill was in
1984? No where near as high as it is now and you only paid one company not 2
or 3. There was always only 1 place to go and compain and you dealt with
real people not push on1 to do this and push 2to do that.
Are any of you old enough to remember or are you just the peole who have
nothing better to do than complain?
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: Phone rates
by: red7snake (50/M) 02/01/05 09:45 am
Msg: 22 of 138
our phone system has went to hell since the reakup of att the phone has went
backwards since then . So dont expect anything but a stoneage system in the
future .and higher bills
Posted as a reply to: Msg 21 by ladybugsgrany
--------------------------------------------------------
Re: Not much of an innovator?
by: velvetmischief 02/01/05 09:53 am
Msg: 26 of 138
It is too bad schools don't really educate the youngsters these days. That
should have been learned in a history class.
Of course it would help if the youngsters stayed in school long enough to
get an education.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 7 by texas_dubbya_marshall
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: Phone rates
by: xylor50 (50/M/Modesto, CA) 02/01/05 09:59 am
Msg: 31 of 138
You can thank Uncle Sam for putting Ma Bell in a prison. I was working for
them in 1982 when I first learned that in 1952 the United States had filed
an Anti-trust suit against ma bell for monopolizing the communications
market. The US Government broke up the Bell system which was just about to
bring out picture phones and things. The military wanted to be exempt from
having to deal with other company's but old Judge Green made them sit in
their own stew. Splitting up the largest and greatest communications company
in the world was a mistake. It costs a lot of people their jobs, slowed down
progress in communications, and raised the price of everything. The local
phone service used to be subsidized by the long distance. This is how the
payphones and local service was kept so cheap. The theory was to make the
phone cheap,convenient,and handy and people would make long distance calls
more often. By breaking the long distance and local phone system in half it
was bound to fail.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 21 by ladybugsgrany
-------------------------------------------------------
Ma Bell = Best Phone Company
by: mutatron (48/M/Dallas, TX) 02/01/05 10:04 am
Msg: 36 of 138
Back when it was still Ma Bell, AT&T was the best phone company in the
world. For the longest time, land lines in Europe and Japan were less
reliable than wireless was a few years ago. For decades, the Japanese had a
habit of saying "moshi, moshi?" ("Can you hear me now?") every few minutes
to make sure they were still connected, while in the US, we enjoyed rock
solid connections.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't AT&T's fate sealed in large part
by: far_seer22 (51/M) 02/01/05 10:25 am
Msg: 46 of 139
by factors they could not control, eg:
- the fact that they were broken up by court order;
- didn't they have to lease their long-distance lines to competitors like
MCI, so that they lost business to them;
- didn't they have to pay $$ to the baby bells to use their lines;
- weren't they bitterly competed against by the baby bells, ungrateful
children?
---------------------------------------------------------
We should pay homage to ATT
by: fiman50 02/01/05 10:27 am
Msg: 47 of 139
6 recommendations
How quickly we forget. If not for ATT the phone system that we enjoy today
would not exist.
If not for it's initial monopolistic hold on the phone industry we might be
dealing with incompatible phone systems throughout the US.
ATT standardized the phone system and the equipment used throughout the
system.
I say thank you to ATT. The computer industry could learn a lesson from ATT.
-------------------------------------------------------------
USA Today Ignorant: What's New?
by: firstplacefinishus 02/01/05 11:06 am
Msg: 53 of 139
1 recommendation
.... as usual, the ignorant journal class has zero understanding of
technology and history.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Re: USA Today Ignorant: What's New?
by: terrysmoving 02/01/05 11:17 am
Msg: 55 of 139
I agree, saying that USA Today reads at a fourth grade level is insulting to
fourth graders. USA Today is the FOX News of the paper industry.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 53 by firstplacefinishus
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: We should pay homage to ATT
by: pig_dog_infidel (M/USA) 02/01/05 11:25 am
Msg: 56 of 139
Don't forget Bell Labs invented the semiconductor transitor, IC's, Unix
(which is what Linux is), C and C++, and millions of other things before it
was broken up.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 47 by fiman50
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: We should pay homage to ATT
by: terrysmoving 02/01/05 11:44 am
Msg: 63 of 139
1 recommendation
They also created the laser, the solar cell, communications satellites, Bell
labs boast over 26,000 patents and eleven Nobel Prize winners. They also
made undersea cables a viable technology.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 56 by pig_dog_infidel
----------------------------------------------------------
Monopolies sometimes positive
by: deliveranceman (M/La) 02/01/05 11:48 am
Msg: 64 of 139
3 recommendations
AT&T created Bell Labs. AT&T was gushing with money and could invest in
research back in it's Monopoly Hay day.
They researchers at Bell Labs build the blocks that later were key to
building the internet. One of the most important blocks was the creation of
the "C" programming language, which is what the internet is was basically
"written" with. There were key developers of Unix, the operating system of
the Internet. Without Bell Labs we wouldn't have the Internet Today. We
would still be coding in Fortran and running code on IBM big iron.
Sometimes only Monopolies can invest in the research that moves technology
to the next level.
Not all Monopolies are good but sometimes they are key.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wake Up
by: asporos 02/01/05 12:03 pm
Msg: 66 of 139
AT&T funded Bell Laboratories, scientific think-tanks where very bright
folks could play without pressure. They brought us optical communications,
UNIX, C, and C++, arguably the foundation of our current information age.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Not much of an innovator?
by: id_10_t_savant 02/01/05 01:08 pm
Msg: 71 of 139
>>It was an overbearing monopoly before its breakup, and a largely inept
>>competitor ever since.<<
Yeah, AT&T never was able to compete with the likes of XO Communications or
Global Crossing or WorldCom. Of course, all those companies have gone under
due to accounting scandals or declared bankruptcy or both, but hey, who's
counting?
>>Its customers could choose whatever color telephone they wanted, the
>>saying went, so long as it was black.<<
I thought the saying was that you could buy a Model T in whatever color you
wanted, as long as it was black...
>>Today, bits and pieces of what was once Ma Bell can be found in a dizzying
>>array of concerns, among them SBC, BellSouth, Verizon, Cingular, Comcast,
>>Lucent, Qwest, Agere and Avaya.<<
Did the writer really not know that SBC is the parent of Cingular?
This is why I don't read USA Today. Their "journalism" sucks.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 7 by texas_dubbya_marshall
--------------------------------------------------------
Re: Not much of an innovator?
by: creaker41 (42/M/MA) 02/01/05 02:37 pm
Msg: 79 of 139
"Where have all those black desk phones gone? "
I wish they hadn't yanked them - those were designed to last for a minimum
of thiry years.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 28 by econobiker
---------------------------------------------------------
What a load'o crap
by: dgtekinc 02/01/05 04:08 pm
Msg: 89 of 139
1 recommendation
>>It was an overbearing monopoly before its breakup, and a largely inept
>>competitor ever since. Not since its early days has it been much of an
>>innovator.<<
This company should never had allowed itself to be broken up by a low life
like Ebbert from MCI/Worldcom, just an other plain operating company without
R&D.
AT&T research and engineering divisions were the leading edge in Tech
innovations and patents directed by Nobel Prizes (fiber optic, digital
communication, IT software etc).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All telecom companies are the same ...
by: fallsnowfall (35/M/New York, NY) 02/01/05 05:04 pm
Msg: 92 of 139
The writer doesn't get it.
AT&T lost in Washington DC to the baby bells, even though it's brand and
customer service were slightly better than the baby bells. This was not a
marketplace dynamic, but a lobbying one. The FCC and DOJ decided this one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Fairwell
by: lau_pan (48/M/Chinatown) 02/01/05 06:04 pm
Msg: 94 of 139
1 recommendation
I think that if a researcher did due diligence on the break-up and the
companies that benefited from the break-up that we would find a very
interesting story.
Many forget that AT&T gave America a great, stable communications system,
which greatly added to America's economic strength nationally and worldwide.
There are few countries in the world where the phone/communication system
operates as well.
Companies like MCI and others which benefited from the break-up and many
companies that benefited and went on to abused the American consumer and
investors would not have had the opportunity had not certain political and
government lobby groups not forced the issue of the break-up.
Too often we look at the short, window view of the issues and not the
longer-term decisions our leaders make. Are these decisions contrived as to
a larger plan or do they evolve, we do not know.
We do know that since the issue of the break up began; there was a large
amount of money that changed hands, companies changed positions in the
economic puzzle and a great American Icon has been brought to it's knees and
given the final blow to the head.
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: We should pay homage to ATT
by: far_seer22 (51/M) 02/01/05 10:22 pm
Msg: 118 of 140
The decision to break up AT&T was driven by personal politics (that of the
judge involved). It was the choice of, as "The Economist" put it, "a
solitary judge" and the decision had an "Only In America" stamp on it.
That it was an exercise in "Big Brother" govt. intervention seems beyond
dispute.
Did it result in a net gain or a net loss for the USA? Hmmm.
Maybe it increased efficiency. Maybe it increased innovation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
by: sufferinsasofrats (777/deserted pirate island) 02/01/05 10:35 pm
Msg: 120 of 141
that had more to do with the culture of the day than with Ma Bell.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 68 by jrjarre
--------------------------------------------------------
I remember when phones worked
by: raven_once_more (F/IL) 02/02/05 08:09 am
Msg: 129 of 141
.... they had dials, weighed 20 pounds, anybody could use anybody's phone
without instructions and you could hear the person at the other end.
-----------------------------------------------------------
No one will miss it?
by: hayneiii 02/02/05 12:50 pm
Msg: 139 of 142
1 recommendation
People forget that the overbearing monopoly that was ATT also ran Bell Labs.
It funded the basic research that created transitors, printed circuits, and
the rest of modern electronic communications. When the overbearing monopoly
was broken up we were left with a bunch of smaller overbearing monopolys.
The breakup was the basic cause of the lack of innovation because they could
no longer afford to adequately fund Bell Labs. It has been a loss for the
whole world.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: No one will miss it?
by: electronikah (20/M/Rochester, NY, USA) 02/02/05 01:15 pm
Msg: 140 of 142
Don't forget software. AT&T's research led to some of the first compilers,
and some of the original code is still in use.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 139 by hayneiii
----------------------------------------------------------------
Most of you who are complaining...
by: tantalus_unbound 02/02/05 01:18 pm
Msg: 141 of 142
.... about AT&T aren't even old enough to remember why it was here.
AT&T was a monopoly because it had to be to spread a unified technology. The
reason the RBOCS were able to explode and do well was because there was a
single infrastructure for them to work with. EVERYTHING WE HAVE IN TERMS OF
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY IS DUE TO AT&T. Not only that, but the reason the
telephone networks go everywhere in the country, even to South Succotash, is
because there was a monopoly with a mandate to wire up the country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- 02-02-2005, 12:51 PM #25Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
In article
<[email protected]>,
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The rest of the world is not apologizing for AT&T.
> >
> > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...=/usatoday/200
> > 50201/cm_usatoday/atampthangsupandfewaresorrytosaygoodbye>
> >
> > "AT&T hangs up - and few are sorry to say goodbye"
>
> Read some of the replies.
> -------------------------------------------
> Not much of an innovator?
> by: texas_dubbya_marshall (M/on my horse) 02/01/05 08:07 am
> Msg: 7 of 138
> 15 recommendations
>
> >> Not since its early days has it been much of an innovator.
>
> the author of this piece is obviously in his 20's ... i think he may have
> forgotten the discovery of the transistor,
Duh, the transistor was invented in 1947.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for supporting AT&T,
as the yahoo story shows, others do not share your opinion.
- 02-02-2005, 02:16 PM #26N9WOSGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
> Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for supporting AT&T,
> as the yahoo story shows, others do not share your opinion.
I have one term that constantly comes to mind, when I read that stuff.
Ungrateful bastards!!!!!!!!!!
- 02-02-2005, 02:56 PM #27Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
In article
<[email protected]>,
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for supporting AT&T,
> > as the yahoo story shows, others do not share your opinion.
>
> I have one term that constantly comes to mind, when I read that stuff.
>
> Ungrateful bastards!!!!!!!!!!
No, it was AT&T that was ungrateful to it's customers, becoming a case
study of how a monopoly should not act.
- 02-02-2005, 04:40 PM #28Tropical HavenGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
>>>Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for supporting AT&T,
>>>as the yahoo story shows, others do not share your opinion.
>>
>>I have one term that constantly comes to mind, when I read that stuff.
>>
>>Ungrateful bastards!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> No, it was AT&T that was ungrateful to it's customers, becoming a case
> study of how a monopoly should not act.
I wasn't around for ALL of AT&T's glory, but all I hear from people is
how service went from the best, to barely acceptable with the breakup.
Not only do they complain that prices have gone up (more than simple
inflation), but that service and quality have degraded. The old saying
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is heard often.
I have to admit that I find Verizon wirelines too unreliable to warrant
subscribing to one. In the Orlando metro area, after the summer
hurricanes, Verizon wirelines in this area were down for an total of
over 4 weeks. That was the end of the wireline...
TH
- 02-02-2005, 05:45 PM #29Jack ZwickGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
In article <[email protected]>,
Tropical Haven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for supporting AT&T,
> >>>as the yahoo story shows, others do not share your opinion.
> >>
> >>I have one term that constantly comes to mind, when I read that stuff.
> >>
> >>Ungrateful bastards!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> > No, it was AT&T that was ungrateful to it's customers, becoming a case
> > study of how a monopoly should not act.
>
> I wasn't around for ALL of AT&T's glory, but all I hear from people is
> how service went from the best, to barely acceptable with the breakup.
> Not only do they complain that prices have gone up (more than simple
> inflation), but that service and quality have degraded. The old saying
> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is heard often.
>
> I have to admit that I find Verizon wirelines too unreliable to warrant
> subscribing to one. In the Orlando metro area, after the summer
> hurricanes, Verizon wirelines in this area were down for an total of
> over 4 weeks. That was the end of the wireline...
I may be older than you. I heard horror stories of its arrogance
throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties from all the people I
know. Sorry, it was BAD before the breakup. And it was a dollar a minute
for long distance until AT&T had any competition. I like breakups, only
wish Microsoft had been broken up as first determined by the court.
- 02-02-2005, 06:48 PM #30Tropical HavenGuest
Re: Done Deal. SBC to buy AT&T
> I may be older than you. I heard horror stories of its arrogance
> throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties from all the people I
> know. Sorry, it was BAD before the breakup. And it was a dollar a minute
> for long distance until AT&T had any competition. I like breakups, only
> wish Microsoft had been broken up as first determined by the court.
I think that other factors were involved. While AT&T had no competition
and could just set prices as it saw fit, I think wide-spread
technological advances had a bigger impact on LD prices than the AT&T
breakup. Much like the way that digital modes make more efficient use
of spectrum than analog modes on wireless.
Than again, I've only spent a few years living in an area served by one
of the RBOC's. My experience with them (what is now Qwest and Verizon)
has been very very poor.
TH
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.attws
- HTC
- alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat