| Re: Down with SBC! said by Cappelli:
In response to the post by boogie74:
........Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system.
No comment on the other stuff, but you're flunking history.SBC is not a monopoly,(cable competes) and competitors are not forbidden to lay cable, or the cable industry wouldn't exist. AT&T requested and was granted monopoly status in 1913-14, in exchange for allowing other phone companies (thousands of them)to inter-connect. AT&T lobbyists also conceived the regulatory framework, which brought AT&T phenomenal prosperity.Phones became ubiquitous as a result of a 1925 decision by AT&T's chairman to lower prices for higher volume profitability. He funded the expansion by selling IT&T and international rights. .
--
Pupowski
"Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth" |
