Reviews:
 ·Charter
 ·Brown Dog Networks
 ·Access US
 ·Google Voice
| reply to pnh102
Re: Lesson Learned Problem is you just can't go out and start running phone lines up and down the street.
The original AT & T was broken up because of the monopoly power they had and since they alone are in control of the last mile copper as well as all the central offices they have the power to extract whatever they want at any time they want.
We did start to get a little competition during the years AT & T was divested but as soon as they started merging back together it came as no surprise the competition slowly disappeared.
There were several ISP's in the area that went under after AT & T made sure they were on the worst possible connections. There was a legal battle and in the end AT & T ponied up cash to shut them up before it got out of hand. As they still have a very large monopoly still in place and still have 100% control of the land lines in the area I don't believe they should be able to charge a penny more than they would any other customer.
You would also think that if you purchase that service in bulk you would get a discount but that's also not the way Ma Bell works. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by megarock:You would also think that if you purchase that service in bulk you would get a discount but that's also not the way Ma Bell works. "Ma Bell" doesn't exist any more; hasn't since the 1984 divestiture. Part of the consent decree was a severe restriction on the use of the Bell logo by AT&T. That is why they had to create a new logo.
The mergers of the RBOCs hasn't recreated "Ma Bell", nor can it. There were seven companies created; "Regional Bell Operating Companies" ("RBOCs"), also called, "Baby Bells", which had the rights to the Bell logo:
• Ameritech
• Bell Atlantic
• Bellsouth
• NYNEX
• The Pacific Telesis Group
• Southwestern Bell Telephone
• US West
Only a handful of mergers were possible. The ones which occurred:
• Bell Atlantic+NYNEX (Verizon)
• Ameritech+The Pacific Telesis Group+Southwestern Bell Telephone (SBC)
• AT&T+Bellsouth (AT&T)
There are no more likely; Qwest bought US West outright, and dropped the US West brand. They are not a likely takeover candidate; by either AT&T, or Verizon.
SBC bought AT&T outright, and dropped the SBC brand. They are not a likely takeover candidate; by either Qwest, or Verizon.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
1 edit | said by NormanS:"Ma Bell" doesn't exist any more; hasn't since the 1984 divestiture. Yes she does.. she just isn't quite done putting herself back together again.
However, that is slowly happening. All in the name of "competition and consumer benefit". |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Skippy25:Yes she does.. she just isn't quite done putting herself back together again. However, that is slowly happening. All in the name of "competition and consumer benefit". Like all the kings horses and men were able to do with Humpty Dumpty.
Ma Bell well never be resurrected; can never be resurrected. For that to happen you'd have to merger Alcatel (a French company), AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon. And even then, it wouldn't be the "Ma Bell" everybody learned to hate, because it would included some parts that "Ma Bell" would never have Borged if she had been left alone.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
|
|
| Spin it how you will... but the monopoly that was broken up in 1984 isn't too far from the one that is running now.
You basically have 2 companies (Verizon and AT&T) that control about 60% of the entire nations infrastructure. If they don't want 45mbps symmetrical to all users (as they promised in 1996 to get their way), guess what, you aren't going to get it. So instead of having one ma'bell you now have 2 that have pretty much the same control the one did.
Cable is growing, but it still does not have nearly the over reaching power that the bells have and probably never will. In a best case scenario we would have a duopoly situation.
If memory serves me right, over 6000 telephone companies and ISPs were put out of business as a result of these "competition and consumer benefit" changes. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Skippy25:Spin it how you will... You are the one spinning like a top! The "Ma Bell" of 1984 was a vertically integrated monopoly. You had to use their equipment on their network. You had to lease their telephones from them.
Verizon and AT&T have very different approaches, today; the differences between FiOS and Uverse. Some others, as well. And no R&D/Manufacturing (which eventually went to France; bought by Alcatel).
Neither can keep you from buying your own equipment, and connecting to their respective networks.
Oh, and there are three companies; don't ignore Qwest.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| LOL, it's amazing how the blinders come on when you stock jockeys come out of the gate.
I understand all about the previous monopoly and never did I say the monopoly is what it use to be. It will never be that same beast. However, there is without question a monopoly over broadband in this country and that is clear in the lack of coverage, lack of improvements, and cost. Again I ask.. Do you have the 45Mbps symmetrical connection for $40-$50 a month they promised back in the mid 90's?
In addition, Qwest is a minor player compared to AT&T and Verizon. Minor enough that they are barely worth mentioning and you know that.
Regardless, your "rebuttal" doesn't change a single thing I stated. |
|
3 edits | reply to NormanS
Hmm, it seems we've attracted a few shills to this thread.
Yes, they were broke up. But, after the divestment, some major companies they owned failed. They were *almost* bankrupt. Some people argue because of Sprint and MCI. AT&T chose to sell off many companies they acquired, just to stay in business. All they really had at that point was long distance and maybe broadband. This was all in the 1980's.
They did end up buying SBC again, but this was after they sold off some of their acquisitions when they neared bankruptcy, after the mandated separation. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:LOL, it's amazing how the blinders come on when you stock jockeys come out of the gate. Ad hominem logical fallacy.
I understand all about the previous monopoly and never did I say the monopoly is what it use to be. It will never be that same beast. However, there is without question a monopoly over broadband in this country and that is clear in the lack of coverage, lack of improvements, and cost.
There is no broadband monopoly in most places; a duopoly, yes (cable broadband versus telco broadband), but not a monopoly.
Again I ask.. Do you have the 45Mbps symmetrical connection for $40-$50 a month they promised back in the mid 90's?
That was such a stupid promise to make. Hardly anybody in the world has 45 mbps symmetric for $45 a month. Most is asymmetric DSL; 50/8 for $43 a month in Japan. But I haven't seen anybody offering symmetric broadband Internet for under $100.
In addition, Qwest is a minor player compared to AT&T and Verizon. Minor enough that they are barely worth mentioning and you know that.
They are a remnant of the old "Ma Bell", and they are a player in the game. They should be mentioned.
Regardless, your "rebuttal" doesn't change a single thing I stated.
Well, I have read nothing but FUD in your statements. But you are free to believe facts not in evidence; this isn't a jury trial,
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to longstreet
said by longstreet:Hmm, it seems we've attracted a few shills to this thread. <sarcasm>
Damn! Those AT&T paychecks are fat.
</sarcasm>
Why do so many make such ad hominem logical errors?
They did end up buying SBC again, but this was after they sold off some of their acquisitions when they neared bankruptcy, after the mandated separation.
And not just logical fallacies; SBC was nowhere near bankruptcy. And SBC was not bought. Prior to January, 2006, SBC was run by CEO Ed Whitacre, and AT&T was run by CEO David Dornan. By the time that AT&T bought Bellsouth, effective January, 2007, Ed Whitacre was CEO of AT&T and David Dornan was working a lesser job at a lesser company.
Simple truth is, SBC bought AT&T. Then changed their corporate identity.
If you got that wrong, what else have you got wrong?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
1 edit | You don't think we have? As a statement of fact and therefore, they may not be trusted.
It is indeed not a personal insult to anyone. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by longstreet:You don't think we have? As a statement of fact and therefore, they may not be trusted. It is indeed not a personal insult to anyone. An ad hominem logical error is not always an insult. In this case, it is a belief of an idea as a fact, when their is no supporting evidence.
You don't have to trust what I write, but that doesn't make me a shill.
And I have just shot down another of your "facts"; AT&T did not buy SBC. Nobody bought SBC.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
3 edits | Nobody accused you of being a shill, relax. I was simply informing you of the arrival of such individuals.
The existence of a shill on the internet can neither be proven or disproven, merely suspected.
None here can prove or disprove it, so it must be a valid assertion to at least assume they could be present.
--
So to correct what I stated earlier, SBC bought the old AT&T after they nearly went bankrupt. I just mixed up the company names.
The original company did run out of money by laying cable; then they got a double whammy when they were separated and couldn't compete with MCI / Sprint. This caused a massive sell off and eventual buyout by SBC. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by longstreet:The original company did run out of money by laying cable; then they got a double whammy when they were separated and couldn't compete with MCI / Sprint. This caused a massive sell off and eventual buyout by SBC. MCI/Sprint also got whammied. MCI apparently was spun off, picked up UUnet somewhere (or got picked up), and eventually bought by Verizon (the former MCI/UUnet is now called, "Verizon Business").
From another thread I've been following, the Tier 1 networks are not having an easy time, financially. Those would include AT&T Worldnet Services (which SBC bought), Level 3 (which reportedly posted their first profit in the last six years of operation), Verizon Business (which was MCI/UUnet before Verizon bought them), and ... Qwest (which bought an RBOC, US West, in the late nineties).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
