Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#21

Post by bediger »

astrodust wrote: post #6
bediger wrote: post #2

You've got to remember that "at&t" (the current one) is not AT&T, the remains of The Bell System resulting from the 1983 divestiture. SBC, which started out as a Regional Bell Operating Company named "Southwestern Bell", bought the old AT&T at firesale prices back in 2005 and assumed its corporate livery. SBC and Southwestern Bell before it, never made a secret of thinking that the 1983 Bell System breakup was a mist…

Amazing that a monopoly could eventually go bankrupt. People get paid millions a year to run companies like that into the ground. Charlie Sheen could do no worse.

I forgot all about this article: http://www.cio.com/article/32228/Project_Management_AT_T_Wir...

The original AT&T, before SBC takeover, failed to implement number portability by the late 2004 deadline that all other wireless companies hit. They also "botched" a CRM system upgrade.

Charlie Sheen might have gotten it done better, it's hard to say. If he can listen to "the little people" telling him that problems are imminent, then maybe he could have averted AT&T's downfall.

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#22

Post by jpgs »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #13
markszcz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This picture describes your breakdown: http://www.wikinvest.com/images/0/00/Att_history.jpg (AT&T old and what has spawned out from there.)

That picture is not very accurate. It makes it seem as though USWest simply changed their name to QWest, in reality they got bought by QWest which was a young (founded in 1996) company which had been focusing on fiber optic runs up until they bought a for-reals telecom. I'm sure there are other inaccuracies, that one seemed particularly glaring.

It's riddled with mistakes. SNET was never part of AT&T. GTE and Contel merged, keeping the GTE name, so GTE should be next to Contel. BOCs should be before the 7 RBOCs as part of AT&T. Many missing like NY Tel and NE Tel which became the NYNEX RBOC. MCI line should start with MCI. There are others, and arguably the Sprint/United connection needs to be with GTE. Nice idea, but I hope nobody uses this for serious information.

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#24

Post by mbrubeck »

bediger wrote: post #2

You've got to remember that "at&t" (the current one) is not AT&T, the remains of The Bell System resulting from the 1983 divestiture. SBC, which started out as a Regional Bell Operating Company named "Southwestern Bell", bought the old AT&T at firesale prices back in 2005 and assumed its corporate livery. SBC and Southwestern Bell before it, never made a secret of thinking that the 1983 Bell System breakup was a mist…

Here's a "family tree" that includes AT&T and the other telecoms. It's from 2008, so it'll have to be updated with the latest mergers:

http://www.neatorama.com/family-tree-of-telecommunication/

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#25

Post by true_religion »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #13
markszcz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This picture describes your breakdown: http://www.wikinvest.com/images/0/00/Att_history.jpg (AT&T old and what has spawned out from there.)

That picture is not very accurate. It makes it seem as though USWest simply changed their name to QWest, in reality they got bought by QWest which was a young (founded in 1996) company which had been focusing on fiber optic runs up until they bought a for-reals telecom. I'm sure there are other inaccuracies, that one seemed particularly glaring.

It simplifies a lot:

It seems to imply that Bell Atlantic et all merged to become Verizon around 2000.

Bell Atlantic merged with NYNEX in 1997.

In 1999 Vodafone merged with Airtouch to become Vodafone Airtouch in the US.

Vodafone-Airtouch in that same year went after PrimeCo and merged with it.

Verizon Communications is actually the result of the Bell Atlantic and GTE merger of 2000 (signed 1998).

GTE was not a Bell. Neither was Contel which was acquired by GTE in 1991 (so they should both be on the same level).

Verizon Wireless is a joint venture signed in 1999 and begun real operations 2000 between then Bell Mobile. and Vodafone-Airtouch-Primeco.

Finally in 2005, Verizon Wireless bought MCI.

-----

Looking back on things, the chart really only shows named succession. It doesn't attempt at all to do what you're expect---place companies on a family tree.

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#26

Post by technomancy »

amitraman1 wrote: post #20

My answer: No. We still have Verizon and Sprint. We may get a duopoly in 5-10 years, but for now, AT&T is not a monopoly.

> We still have Verizon and Sprint.

Not if you're on GSM. Not everyone wants to consider investing in SIM-less devices that only work in the US.

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#28

Post by fuzzmeister »

technomancy wrote: post #26
amitraman1 wrote: post #20

My answer: No. We still have Verizon and Sprint. We may get a duopoly in 5-10 years, but for now, AT&T is not a monopoly.

> We still have Verizon and Sprint. Not if you're on GSM. Not everyone wants to consider investing in SIM-less devices that only work in the US.

Both Verizon and AT&T are using LTE for 4G, though, so Sprint will become the odd one out in that situation.

Re: Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making?

#29

Post by chc »

fleitz wrote: post #27
suking wrote: post #14

The FTC is going to allow this - yet they spend time and money on Google and AdMob?

Thats one of the advantages you get when you wiretap the country.

I have a feeling your comment will get dismissed as irrelevant snark, but I have a sinking feeling it's much more accurate than anyone would like to admit. AT&T is pretty well in bed with the government, which gives it political cachet that Google can't dream of getting without wrecking its credibility.
Post reply on HN