Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    RWEmerson
    Guest

    By DIONNE SEARCEY, AMY SCHATZ, ALMAR LATOUR and DENNIS BERMAN
    March 5, 2006 6:33 a.m.

    AT&T Inc. is nearing the acquisition of BellSouth Corp. for roughly $65
    billion, people familiar with the situation said Saturday evening. A
    deal could be announced as early as Monday, these people said.

    Final terms of the deal could not be learned Saturday evening, but these
    people said AT&T Inc. would pay a premium for BellSouth shares of at
    least 15%, valuing the company at $36 per share at least, up from its
    trading price Friday of $31.46. That would push the total equity value
    of the deal to at least $65 billion, plus the assumption of an
    additional $17 billion of BellSouth debt.

    Spokespeople for BellSouth and AT&T declined to comment.

    An AT&T-BellSouth deal would effectively cleave the nation's telecom
    services in two, each vertically integrated with a local phone
    operation, business services, and wireless unit. And it would
    effectively validate the vision of competition laid out by the
    government -- one in which traditional telecom firms compete directly
    against cable operators rather than against each other. The move would
    give AT&T Inc. sole control over Cingular, the nation's largest wireless
    operator.

    A combination between AT&T and BellSouth could have combined market
    capitalization of nearly $160 billion, making AT&T far larger than rival
    Verizon. The deal would nonetheless set a showdown between AT&T and
    Verizon, as the two fight to control wireless, the growth portion of the
    telecom business.
    [Edward Whitacre Jr]

    It was the steep growth of Cingular -- joint owned by BellSouth and the
    former SBC -- that helped push the two firms together, say telecom
    bankers familiar with the space. As the importance of the wireless
    business grew, they say, it became inevitable that SBC (which adopted
    the AT&T name just months ago) would consolidate its position in the South.

    Put together, the SBC territory would extend from California to Florida,
    north to Illinois and south to Texas. Combining the two companies'
    current market capitalizations, AT&T would have a market value
    approaching $150 billion, over 50% greater than Verizon.

    AT&T Chairman and Chief Executive Edward Whitacre has made a name for
    himself in the telecommunications industry as a serial acquirer.

    Mr. Whitacre is able to boast of a string of acquisitions including
    Pacific Telesis Corp., Ameritech Corp. and Southern New England
    Telecommunications Corp. But as he nears retirement the market had been
    anticipating one last hurrah from him; a BellSouth acquisition by AT&T
    has long been the subject of speculation from analysts, investors and
    the two companies' rivals.

    Still the speedy move to acquire BellSouth came as a surprise so soon
    after Mr. Whitacre's takeover of AT&T Corp. last fall. His company is
    just starting to digest the $16 billion acquisition. The former SBC
    Communications Inc. took over AT&T Corp. and adopted the AT&T moniker.
    The new company dominates nearly every aspect of the industry, from
    high-speed Internet connections to long-distance phone service, as well
    as wireless. And Mr. Whitacre now has access to the old AT&T's
    enterprise business and world-wide network.

    Such a deal would likely prompt howls of protest in some quarters as it
    comes on the heels not only of the AT&T-SBC deal but also after Verizon
    Communications Inc.'s acquisition of MCI. Those deals were approved with
    only a few minor conditions despite concerns they would lead to higher
    prices for business customers.

    The wave of mergers has dramatically reshaped the telecom industry, and
    a purchase of BellSouth would further cement the recreation of the old
    Ma Bell, which the government pushed to break up in 1984.

    The management of AT&T, which has apparently briefed key senior
    government officials late last week, appears to be betting that the Bush
    administration and a Bell-friendly Federal Communications Commission
    won't raise too many obstacles for such a deal, arguing that the
    companies serve different geographic regions and do not currently
    compete with one another in a significant way.

    Although AT&T and Verizon's last mergers passed both FCC and Justice
    Department review with little major problems, the latest proposed merger
    may face more hurdles. Recent comments by AT&T and BellSouth executives
    about their intentions to explore new revenue streams from their
    high-speed Internet services by introducing two-tier or "premium"
    service for Internet content providers. Concerns about those plans and
    the concept of "net neutrality," or ensuring that consumers have open
    access to all Internet sites and services and businesses do not find
    their content slowed, has become a major problems for the Bells in
    Washington.

    Meanwhile, the FCC that will be reviewing the AT&T/BellSouth deal will
    likely be a much different body soon with the addition of Robert
    McDowell, a veteran telecom lawyer who currently serves as assistant
    general counsel at Comptel, which represents smaller telephone companies
    and was a vocal opponent of the AT&T and Verizon mergers last year.

    Mr. McDowell is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on
    Thursday for his confirmation and is likely to be asked about the
    merger. Although Mr. McDowell is a Republican, his nomination to the FCC
    was met with noticeable unease by the Bell companies, which have
    privately expressed some concern his experience working with smaller
    competitors may make him less than sympathetic to their concerns.



    See More: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth




  2. #2

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth



    I am by no means a legal expert. By why in Earth would we go through
    the trouble to break up AT&T in the 80's just to have one of the Baby
    Bells (SBC) put it back together again by allowing them to buy up the
    other Bells created during the breakup?? Now, we'll have yet another
    massive AT&T (SBC using the AT&T name they bought recently) distroying
    competition.. so we can break up the NEW AT&T someday??

    There may be little regulators can do, but when a telecom like SBC goes
    around and buys AT&T and cuts thousands of jobs and then agrees to buy
    yet another (BellSouth) and comes right out and says it will cut 10,000
    jobs there comes a point when the FTC has to say "NO. The telecom
    companies are big enough, they need to complete, not buy each other and
    cut thousand of jobs at a time when we NEED new jobs and are loosing
    enough to outsourcing."




  3. #3
    Dave
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > I am by no means a legal expert. By why in Earth would we go through
    > the trouble to break up AT&T in the 80's just to have one of the Baby
    > Bells (SBC) put it back together again by allowing them to buy up the
    > other Bells created during the breakup?? Now, we'll have yet another
    > massive AT&T (SBC using the AT&T name they bought recently) distroying
    > competition.. so we can break up the NEW AT&T someday??
    >
    > There may be little regulators can do, but when a telecom like SBC goes
    > around and buys AT&T and cuts thousands of jobs and then agrees to buy
    > yet another (BellSouth) and comes right out and says it will cut 10,000
    > jobs there comes a point when the FTC has to say "NO. The telecom
    > companies are big enough, they need to complete, not buy each other and
    > cut thousand of jobs at a time when we NEED new jobs and are loosing
    > enough to outsourcing."
    >



    AMEN!!!



  4. #4
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    [email protected] wrote:

    > There may be little regulators can do,


    Actually there is lot they can do, but they won't.



  5. #5
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on 6 Mar 2006
    11:33:11 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >I am by no means a legal expert. By why in Earth would we go through
    >the trouble to break up AT&T in the 80's just to have one of the Baby
    >Bells (SBC) put it back together again by allowing them to buy up the
    >other Bells created during the breakup??


    The world has changed. Back then we had a regulated monopoly with no
    competition. Now we have deregulation and competition.

    >Now, we'll have yet another
    >massive AT&T (SBC using the AT&T name they bought recently) distroying
    >competition..


    Crush all the cable and wireless competition out of existence? Doubtful.

    >so we can break up the NEW AT&T someday??


    If and when that happens, then appropriate remedies will be in order.
    Government interference against a hypothetical outcome isn't warranted.

    >There may be little regulators can do, but when a telecom like SBC goes
    >around and buys AT&T and cuts thousands of jobs and then agrees to buy
    >yet another (BellSouth) and comes right out and says it will cut 10,000
    >jobs there comes a point when the FTC has to say "NO. The telecom
    >companies are big enough, they need to complete, not buy each other and
    >cut thousand of jobs at a time when we NEED new jobs and are loosing
    >enough to outsourcing."


    You can't protect jobs by forcing companies to be inefficient -- all that does
    is lose the companies and thus the jobs a different way. Jobs are only
    protected by growing businesses through increased efficiency (productivity).

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  6. #6
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:04:44
    -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> There may be little regulators can do,

    >
    >Actually there is lot they can do, but they won't.


    For good reason -- because it would be counterproductive.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  7. #7
    BruceR
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    The point of regulation is to ensure competition - not to secure
    positions that are superfluous.


    > I am by no means a legal expert. By why in Earth would we go through
    > the trouble to break up AT&T in the 80's just to have one of the Baby
    > Bells (SBC) put it back together again by allowing them to buy up the
    > other Bells created during the breakup?? Now, we'll have yet another
    > massive AT&T (SBC using the AT&T name they bought recently) distroying
    > competition.. so we can break up the NEW AT&T someday??
    >
    > There may be little regulators can do, but when a telecom like SBC
    > goes around and buys AT&T and cuts thousands of jobs and then agrees
    > to buy yet another (BellSouth) and comes right out and says it will
    > cut 10,000 jobs there comes a point when the FTC has to say "NO. The
    > telecom companies are big enough, they need to complete, not buy each
    > other and cut thousand of jobs at a time when we NEED new jobs and
    > are loosing enough to outsourcing."






  8. #8
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    [email protected] wrote:

    >I am by no means a legal expert. By why in Earth would we go through
    >the trouble to break up AT&T in the 80's just to have one of the Baby
    >Bells (SBC) put it back together again by allowing them to buy up the
    >other Bells created during the breakup?? Now, we'll have yet another
    >massive AT&T (SBC using the AT&T name they bought recently) distroying
    >competition.. so we can break up the NEW AT&T someday??
    >
    >There may be little regulators can do, but when a telecom like SBC goes
    >around and buys AT&T and cuts thousands of jobs and then agrees to buy
    >yet another (BellSouth) and comes right out and says it will cut 10,000
    >jobs there comes a point when the FTC has to say "NO. The telecom
    >companies are big enough, they need to complete, not buy each other and
    >cut thousand of jobs at a time when we NEED new jobs and are loosing
    >enough to outsourcing."
    >
    >
    >

    It's a little bit different now. How many million cell phone
    subscribers did AT&T have in 1984? How many DSL subscribers did AT&T
    have in 1984? How many people can currently choose between BellSouth
    and the New AT&T for their local landline service? Why was Baby Bell
    Verizon allowed to bid for MCI, which pushed for the breakup of AT&T?

    Honestly, times have changed. The former AT&T (long distance company,
    Grandma Bell) was getting old and just couldn't live alone anymore. She
    had to move in with one of her children to survive. MCI wasn't making
    it either, and it chose a Baby Bell, battling between Verizon and
    Qwest. Long distance is no longer super expensive. People who want a
    telephone are no longer forced to get one through their local landline
    company. We have internet options, Vonage, for instance, that can run
    through cable internet. You can choose cell phones. In many markets
    you can choose between local Bell, T-Mobile, local cable carrier,
    satellite carrier (internet, then VOIP), Verizon Wireless, Cingular
    Wireless, Sprint (or Sprint owned Nextel), Alltel...you have more
    choices now.

    Like in the cases of AT&T Wireless or Nextel, when you have a
    sellout/merger option or a cease operations option, the government will
    probably allow the merger or buyout, since that would be less
    catastrophic as the company ceasing operations after bankruptcy.



  9. #9
    Jeremy
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    "Tropical Haven" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:fJHPf.135431
    >>

    > It's a little bit different now. How many million cell phone subscribers
    > did AT&T have in 1984? How many DSL subscribers did AT&T have in 1984?
    > How many people can currently choose between BellSouth and the New AT&T
    > for their local landline service? Why was Baby Bell Verizon allowed to
    > bid for MCI, which pushed for the breakup of AT&T?
    >
    >


    The irony is that SBC could find a way to make AT&T back into a major market
    force after the original AT&T management could not.

    AT&T (the original) screwed up when it spun off its wireless operation. I
    believe that AT&T was cash-strapped and needed to trim back its operations.
    As it turned out, long distance became a free commodity (I still can't
    figure out how they can give it away), the local Bell companies seem to have
    a good grip on their customers, and wireless has become essential to any
    communications company that wants to be taken seriously.

    I still remember thinking, in 1984, that the regional Bell companies were
    the ones that would have the tough going. I thought that AT&T, with their
    world-wide reach, would reign supreme. Who'd have thought . . . ?





  10. #10
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    Jeremy wrote:
    > "Tropical Haven" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:fJHPf.135431
    >
    >>It's a little bit different now. How many million cell phone subscribers
    >>did AT&T have in 1984? How many DSL subscribers did AT&T have in 1984?
    >>How many people can currently choose between BellSouth and the New AT&T
    >>for their local landline service? Why was Baby Bell Verizon allowed to
    >>bid for MCI, which pushed for the breakup of AT&T?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > The irony is that SBC could find a way to make AT&T back into a major market
    > force after the original AT&T management could not.
    >
    > AT&T (the original) screwed up when it spun off its wireless operation. I
    > believe that AT&T was cash-strapped and needed to trim back its operations.
    > As it turned out, long distance became a free commodity (I still can't
    > figure out how they can give it away), the local Bell companies seem to have
    > a good grip on their customers, and wireless has become essential to any
    > communications company that wants to be taken seriously.
    >
    > I still remember thinking, in 1984, that the regional Bell companies were
    > the ones that would have the tough going. I thought that AT&T, with their
    > world-wide reach, would reign supreme. Who'd have thought . . . ?
    >
    >



    To repeat a familiar phrase... "There ain't no such thing as a free
    lunch". Just because one's usage of long distance calling isn't listed
    on one's tab with separate charges don't mean it's free. Yes, the cost
    is significantly reduced - local service providers leverage long-term
    access contracts between multiple LD providers or haul their voice
    traffic across their own internal voice networks - making it feasible to
    offer a service level bundled with a variety of features. This
    "averaged" delivery cost is spread across the land and shared by
    everyone regardless of each user's LD calling scope. Free is a
    marketing term, not a financial term.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  11. #11
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: AT&T Nears $65 Billion Deal To Buy BellSouth

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:53:53 -0600,
    Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jeremy wrote:


    >> The irony is that SBC could find a way to make AT&T back into a major market
    >> force after the original AT&T management could not.
    >>
    >> AT&T (the original) screwed up when it spun off its wireless operation. I
    >> believe that AT&T was cash-strapped and needed to trim back its operations.
    >> As it turned out, long distance became a free commodity (I still can't
    >> figure out how they can give it away), the local Bell companies seem to have
    >> a good grip on their customers, and wireless has become essential to any
    >> communications company that wants to be taken seriously.
    >>
    >> I still remember thinking, in 1984, that the regional Bell companies were
    >> the ones that would have the tough going. I thought that AT&T, with their
    >> world-wide reach, would reign supreme. Who'd have thought . . . ?

    >
    >To repeat a familiar phrase... "There ain't no such thing as a free
    >lunch". Just because one's usage of long distance calling isn't listed
    >on one's tab with separate charges don't mean it's free. Yes, the cost
    >is significantly reduced - local service providers leverage long-term
    >access contracts between multiple LD providers or haul their voice
    >traffic across their own internal voice networks - making it feasible to
    >offer a service level bundled with a variety of features. This
    >"averaged" delivery cost is spread across the land and shared by
    >everyone regardless of each user's LD calling scope. Free is a
    >marketing term, not a financial term.


    Jeremy is actually essentially correct on this one. Current wireless
    (cellular) pricing reflects the fact that the real cost of a telephone call
    has for many years been relatively insensitive to distance; i.e., the real
    cost of a call across the country is very little more than the real cost of a
    call across town -- hefty long distance charges are a leftover from a long
    bygone era. VoIP is now bringing the same sanity to landline.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  • Similar Threads