Slashdot Mirror
SBC Might Buy AT&T
ChipGuy writes "SBC is in talks to buy AT&T according to Wall Street Journal and New York Times, both reporting price tag to be between $15-and-$16 billion. The news comes close on heels of SBC reported weaker earnings and 7000 job cuts. The New York Times says talks are fluid and sensitive. Wall Street Journal says, "a major acquisition would speak to SBC Chief Executive Edward Whitacre Jr.'s aim of turning the company into a national brand and his desire to do at least one final deal before he retires." Om Malik writes that "buying AT&T will make sense for anyone, and not just SBC. Why? Because AT&T still is the only game in the enterprise markets. MCI is hurting and Sprint clearly wants to focus on wireless. That leaves AT&T in a pretty good shape.""
"Let's break up Ma Bell so that some 20 years later they will all merge back together to become an even more powerful and unstoppable force."
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I might buy AT&T too. I love speculation. Who else might buy AT&T? Are you thinking about it? Raise your hand if you are thinking about anything else.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Step 1: Reuinite the Bells Step 2: Use uber resources to roll out fiber (which they apparently don't have to share like their copper) Step 3: Regain monopoly
AT&T is not exactly a competitor at the moment. They have never been a competitor. They were designed from the ground up to be a monopoly provider, which they were for many years. Once their monopoly status ended, they coasted by on their reputation for about another 10-15 years, and then once the long distance market became truly competitive (beyond 3 major players) they pretty much fell apart. No division of AT&T has ever actually won over customers based on value, since they've historically been unnecessarily expensive. Without a buyout, AT&T will just wither up and die, as they are already close. No amount of transformation will ever allow AT&T to be a true free market competitor.
ALT="To all AT&T customers: we're here to stay" WIDTH="426" HEIGHT="60" BORDER="0" HSPACE="14" VSPACE="6"
Heck, I might even report this to the Register and get quoted as an "eagle eyed reader" like this guy did.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Before we get into it about rebuilding the hated Ma Bell of yesteryear, keep this in perspective. SBC is right now one of the four remaining RBOCs, or Baby Bells, formed from the divestiture of AT&T (the original national phone monopoly) in 1984. The RBOCs already provide national long distance service (opened to them following the Telecommunications Act of 1996). AT&T is mostly a pure long distance and data network (WAN) player these days. The Bells have to have network-sharing agreements to provide national LD service. Qwest has an extensive fiber LD network though. So this potential acquisition would add a national long distance and data network to an incumbent local service provider and give it a huge presence in the enterprise market. It would not create a new national phone monopoly or be the Son of Ma Bell. They would be a formidable competitor though.
and his desire to do at least one final deal before he retires
People always tell me that business leaders make their decisions based on hard facts and money. They're just as driven by vanity and shiny new things as the geeks are. They're just less honest with themselves ab't it...
Anyhow, the telecommunications industry has changed dramatically since the breakup of AT&T, and the rationale for the breakup no longer exists. These days, cell phones are prevalent; competitors easily enter the market for cell phones, which can be used for local and long-distance calls. A re-united AT&T (SBC + Pacbell, which was purchases by SBC, + AT&T + Lucent, which includes Bell Labs) would not pose a monopolistic threat. Heck, a re-united AT&T would be no more monopolistic than Micro$oft.
Note that even the Internet poses additional competition in the telecommunication market. Many people use the Internet, via VOIP, to make telephone calls although they may not realize that their call is being routed via IP packets.
I have comcast cable and I use vonage for phone service. Comcast just raised their rates, and I decided that I dont want to pay that much anymore and my friends dsl speeds are about the same for much less. So I call SBC and click though all the menu's to get to sales. I ask about dsl. She asks my address, my name and my phone number. I give her all 3. She informs me that my number is not under their service. I tell her that I use voice over IP, but I would be willing to get their local phone service if I can get DSL. She said they can't check to see if I can get dsl without me first getting phone service!
So we go round and round about this. I ask what the cheaps phone service I can get is, and we go round and round about that. Can't not choose a long distance carrier, you are charged more for not picking a package deal thing, etc. Finally, I decide you can't get a phone for less then 40.00 a month, and on top of that, because I've never been a customer they want a 150.00 deposit.
So I said screw it. I just canceled my expanded cable package and kept basic cable and cable internet. I'll use BT to get the shows I miss.