SBC and AT&T Boards Vote to Go Ahead

telstar writes "As a follow-up to earlier coverage regarding the possible acquisition of AT&T by SBC, MSNBC is reporting that boards from both companies met to vote today and that the acquisition will go forward at a price of 16 billion dollars. Both companies are currently keeping the deal quiet."

Comments

Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[caferace]

Of course, a lot of this is going to rest on the combination making it past US gummint Antitrust hurdles.

I don't see this happening anytime soon. My SP asked me today why we ever broke up "Ma Bell" in the first place. I half-joked we'd still be dialing like this: (making circular motion) if we hadn't...

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[tinrobot]

I think you confuse the current government with those in the past who actually cared about creating competition.

George Bush's FTC will approve the merger. Guaranteed.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[fm6]

Hurdles? The current administration loves mergers.

You know, the Bell System breakup wasn't entirely involuntary. They could have continued to drag out procedings until they became irrelevent -- the usual procedure when the antitrust people go after a company that size. (And at the time, AT&T was the biggest company in human history.) But management wanted to get out of the local phone business. As long as AT&T remain a public utility, there were a lot of businesses they couldn't enter: computers, telecom hardware, wireless communication. They had tons of technology that they had invented (remember where Unix came from; not to mention solid state electronics, satellite communications...) but couldn't profit from directly. They were sure that if they were allowed to compete in an open market, they'd own the world.

Didn't happen, of course. It take more than good technology to be the leading player. It takes basic business skills, skills AT&T's management lost when then were a legal monopoly.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[jdreed1024]

I don't see this happening anytime soon. My SP asked me today why we ever broke up "Ma Bell" in the first place. I half-joked we'd still be dialing like this: (making circular motion) if we hadn't...

Well, Ma Bell was certainly being as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft. Forcing operating companies to purchase equipment from a subsidiary (Western Electric), routinely undercutting competitors such as MCI, and most importantly in this day and age of companies deciding what users can and can't do, doing everything to prevent users from using non-Bell equipment on their phone lines, despite an FCC ruling that the consumers had a right to do that.

On the other hand, perhaps all these consolidations of the Baby Bells are trying to tell us something - maybe that's just the way the market works. Certainly it would make life easier for consumers to not have to switch phone companies every 5 years. I've gone from New England Telephone to NYNEX to Bell Atlantic, and finally Verizon. And it's been barely 20 years since AT&T broke up. OTOH, service has suffered - I used be able to make a call from a pay phone for a dime in Massachusetts, even 7 years ago. Now it's 50 cents minimum charge, and you're lucky if you can even find a phone booth, let alone one that's run by Verizon and not one of these 10-10-whatever companies. Is that because the big companies don't care? Or is that because of cell phones become more commonplace? Who knows. But I bet in 5-10 years we'll be right back where we started, and someone will have been laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush's FTC will approve the merger. Guaranteed.

I'm no fan of Bush, but it's not like this is a Republican thing. My phone company changed names 3 times under Clinton (New England Telephone->NYNEX->BellAtlantic->Verizon. (Well, Verizon was in mid-2000, so that's Bush, but the foundations of the merger were well underway by inauguration day.

We need to stop pretending that one party is pro-big-business and the other isn't. Politics is all about money, and only big companies can give the politicans the money they want.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one shits on your face while telling you you'll get a tax refund, and the other shits on your face while telling you it's the only way to save the environment.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, perhaps all these consolidations of the Baby Bells are trying to tell us something - maybe that's just the way the market works.

Perhaps.

But perhaps the solution to this is not to just give in and assume there's nothing we can do, but to try to find a way to change the way the market works.

Communications industries may have really strong network effects-- I mean, hell, they are networks-- but you can engineer communications methods where competition is encouraged. Look at, hell, the internet.

The internet was designed to be a diverse network; and it tends toward diversity in access methods. ISPs just multiplied like crazy right up until the point where bandwidth needs became such that you couldn't really function as an ISP unless you owned one of the big bandwidth networks that predated the internet (phone or cable networks).

Meanwhile the phone system was designed to be a private network internally operated by one company that owned all the switches. Any kind of compatibility in the phone network with anything else has been duct-taped on after the fact. And this network tends toward consolidation in access methods, all the people who sell it just keep glomming together. Maybe this tendency toward consolidation has more to do with technological limitations than market ones... maybe there's a technological way to solve this.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to stop pretending that one party is pro-big-business and the other isn't

Yeah, but one party when they controlled the government occasionally stood in the way of trustbuilding, and the other now that they control the government never stands in the way of trustbuilding.

Believe it or not, there really is a difference between bad and worse.

Anyway, you don't like the way the democratic party works, CHANGE IT. This is an option. Political parties are essentially governed on the local level and the Democratic party, unlike the ever-stronger, ever-more-solid Republican party, is falling apart inside. You can make more of a difference in your local DNC outlet than you think.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon was in mid-2000, so that's Bush

Bill Clinton was President until January 20, 2001. So mid-2000 would not be Bush.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[bfizzle]

Did anyone ever stop and think that maybe it is beneficial for these companies to merge?

It is very possible there is benefits tied to economies of scale for large companies. It is one thing when these large companies put up barriers of entries to their markets or when the government does it for them, but if these companies get this big naturally, good for them.

It's retarded how many /.er claim to be Libertarians but the second you start talking real economics they turn into protectionists. Bah I'm sorry to tell you but the Libertarian party doesn't see anything wrong with one company providing phone sevice to you as long as there is no barriers to entry for other competing firms.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[billsoxs]

I can see the SBC board room now:

"We've rebuilt the monster - IT IS ALIVE!" - (lightning bolts and heavy rain in the background)

Outside we find a group of local villagers with pitchforks and fires ready to burn down the castle......

Belalagosie (sp?) had nothing on these guys

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[gcaseye6677]

I don't think this will make any difference to the end user. It's not like AT&T ever presented a low cost alternative to anything. With VOIP and cell phones, SBC can never have the type of monopoly that AT&T once had.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Alioth]

Well, not quite.

The move to digital exchanges was inevitable - monopoly or not. It took something like 20 full time engineers to keep a 10,000 line Strowger (electromechanical) telephone exchange in operation. But with digital exchanges, you only need one engineer to keep six 10,000 line exchanges running. Even the most stultifying monopoly will see the savings in that.

Having said that, when I lived in Houston (GTE then Verizon when I was there) I was always mildly amused to see that I had to pay a few cents extra for the privilege of having touch-tone dialing. Yes, touch tone dialing was an additional cost paid service.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's retarded how many /.er claim to be Libertarians but the second you start talking real economics they turn into protectionists

I don't think it's "real economics" so much as that in some cases it's impossible to pretend the real world away so that you can pretend libertarian ideology describes reality.

The difference here is that i'm-libertarian-woo slashdotters have dealt with their local phone monopolies. This isn't some economic model, this isn't a discussion about what is philosophically better. This is reality. This is Verizon. And for the woo-libertarianism slashdotters, the knowledge of their personal experience with Verizon, or SBC-- and the personal knowledge that Verizon and SBC are not good things-- simply briefly overwhelm the ability to continue reciting the rote libertarian "The market never, ever makes mistakes" precepts.

Did anyone ever stop and think that maybe it is beneficial for these companies to merge?

Yeah, for the company. And this is universal, it has nothing to do with the communications industry. It's always better for the company to merge; there are always economies of scale.

The America of 1890 was a libertarian paradise. Guess what? That turned out to not be a good thing. Among other things, since it's always beneficial to the companies to merge, just about every single industry had one single trust controlling the entire thing. This is why we have antitrust laws in the first place. We tried Libertarianism and it turned out that what's good for companies isn't always what's good for America or Americans.

no barriers to entry

Don't follow the DSL market so well I take it? You could sum the entire market up in those three words. "Barriers to entry".

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[drmerope]

"I half-joked we'd still be dialing like this: (making circular motion) if we hadn't..."

A slow adoption of technology was never the problem with the old Bell System--quite frankly it was the opposite. AT&T and siblings tended to overinvest in the infrastructure and in introducing new technologies--the latter especially because this one of the few ways the regulatory framework would allow them increase revenues.

If you read some of the planning reports Bell Labs had developed for the Late 80s and Early 90s, you 'll see that the breakup delayed broadband by roughly a decade. Moreover, you know that POTS you're still using? That would have replaced by nationwide digital by the close of the 80s.

If you want to read (a somewhat partisan) rebutal to your assumptions, try out "The Rape of Ma Bell".

Other consequences of the breakup: the evisceration of the best research lab the world has ever known--they did basic and applied work there... gave us the transistor, microwave communications, the laser, unix, the c language, and created the field of formalized information theory and coding. They were also major uncredited contributors to the US space program--leading in particular to the development of the Telstar communication system and the first international television broadcasts in the 60s.

Sure, it was a pain that they made you buy their equipment but the Feds could have put a stop to that practice without creating the mess that has become the telecommunications industry.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[bit01]

I'm neither libertarian or socialist.

It is very possible there is benefits tied to economies of scale for large companies.

True. It is also very possible that big companies suffer from the same problems of bureaucracies and command economies that big government does.

It is one thing when these large companies put up barriers of entries to their markets or when the government does it for them, but if these companies get this big naturally, good for them.

Not if they are big enough that they can run at a loss for long enough to block other players even trying. Markets can and do fail when any one player gets big enough to engage in potentially non-competitive tactics such as cross-subsidisation, mindshare advertising and other forms of market manipulation. Anti-trust law stops this in theory but in practice has proven hopelessly inadequate to deal with the market sophistication of modern corporations.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[drmerope]

"Having said that, when I lived in Houston (GTE then Verizon when I was there) I was always mildly amused to see that I had to pay a few cents extra for the privilege of having touch-tone dialing. Yes, touch tone dialing was an additional cost paid service."

The reason for this was regulatory. When the exchanges are upgraded to support services like Touch Tone or Caller-ID, every line supports those services--the capital cost is already sunk.

However, the tariff regulations did not permit the teleco to simply active said service and charge the extra cent per customer unformly--even though the capability was already there.

This was done because their was a congressional mandate to keep the cost of basic POTS service low--and infact often below operational costs. Thus, the oddity of being charged for touch-tone service. It was a little congressional welfare tax snuck into your telephone bill to keep the minimum cost low.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Kwil]

No.. what's truly retarded is when some dipshit on Slashdot says that they don't "see anything wrong with one company providing phone service to you" in the same breath as "as long as there is no barriers to entry for other firms", and doesn't immediately see the problem inherent in that statement.

That's like saying you don't see anything wrong with ebola so long as nobody catches it. Or that there's nothing wrong with terrorism so long as they don't hurt anybody.

Yeah, given some pipe-dream condition that'll never happen, anything can be fine. You just need to find the right impossibility to posit first.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the face of it, this looks like a backslide. But it's not. You're seeing a local loop company eat an LD company, and it's not the first tme.

It's really a signal that long-distance as a market is dying. LD is no longer king. People are realizing that:

Paying for LD by the minute kind of sucks.

Getting two separate bills via paper mail kind of sucks.

Besides, they can keep in contact with far-away friends via email rather than voice.

I suspect that in 20 years, long distance in general may be dead. And possibly circuit-switched telcos as well. Instead we'll see:

Backbone network providers (with peering arrangements)

Local loop providers (wired/wireless)

Content providers ('live' video, video on demand, for-pay websites, LEXIS/NEXIS type DBs, etc)

Bulk-rate VOIP providers

VOIP-to-PSTN providers (possibly charging per-minute fees to locations where VOIP hasn't penetrated)

It's hard to tell, but I suspect that local-loop providers who can provide a single bill will be the interface to Joe/Joanne Household and small business customers. LocalLoopCo would resell others' content, VOIP services, etc from an a la carte menu (which the customer can bypass if she wants multiple bills). LocalLoopCo would buy connectivity from the backbones and sell it to Joe/Joanne in tiered bulk bandwidth arrangements.

Meanwhile backbone providers would be the interface to larger business customers as well as content providers. VOIP companies would really be in the business of maintaining White/Yellow page-like directories, voicemail repositories, and providing interoperability between various VOIP devices.

The big 'if' for me is how well the cellphone business model will pan out. Will they become the local (wireless) loop provider, or will someone else come along with WIMAX-like equipment and a VOIP handset to eat their lunch?

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[JPelorat]

I half-joked we'd still be dialing like this: (making circular motion) if we hadn't...

And just think - it won't be very much longer before the most common reaction you'll get to that joke is "Huh?", by the kids who've never used a rotary dial phone, much less seen or heard of one.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Well, Verizon was in mid-2000, so that's Bush, but the foundations of the merger were well underway by inauguration day.

That would have still been under Clinton. Bush didn't take office till January of 2001 (or am I missing something?)

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[happyfrogcow]

I don't think this will make any difference to the end user

Except that everything SBC touches turns to a pile of dung. Or maybe you havn't lived in an area where SBC took over...

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[puto]

"With VOIP and cell phones, SBC can never have the type of monopoly that AT&T once had. "

Hmm, as an employee of Cingular Wirless, which is SBC owned and operated, and who just acquired ATT wireless, SBC now has over 50 million wireless clients, and the largest TDMA/GSM network in north america.

Puto

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Politburo]

as there is no barriers to entry for other competing firms.

Well, that's just it. A large market share generally creates barriers to entry. MS' ~90% market share makes it very difficult for any other x86 desktop OS to thrive.

That doesn't necessarily mean that having a large marketshare should somehow be illegal.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Nimey]

Never say never, friend. Enough money and power can go a long way.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[ImaLamer]

"With VOIP and cell phones, SBC can never have the type of monopoly that AT&T once had."

I think you meant to say:

...with VoIP and cell phones, SBC can have the type of monopoly that AT&T once dreamed of...

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you 100%, don't vote Republicratarian, Vote for the party that cares, the Green Party.

Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, which area would that be? And how can you be so sure that the problems weren't created before SBC took over?

Wow...

[Jigabug]

AT&T... swallowed up in 2 big bites by SBC... Who's next!?

Re:Wow...

[stox]

MCI

Re:Wow...

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

Qwest, hopefully.

Please please please please...

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an SBC shareholder, I certainly hope NOT. I don't want any part of Qworst. AT&T is bad enough. I'm going to sell into the next dead-cat bounce.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon, then MCI, then Sprint, and every one else. To tell you the truth, I have a feeling we are heading back to a new phone monopoly, this time, controlling the entire US, with no small businesses to compete, they can shut out small start-up cell-phone companies. Once that happens, and of course, Dubya is going to allow it, because the Republicratarians will allow Corporate America to do whatever they want.

Re:Wow...

[W0nk0]

SBC have made a bad name for themselves down here in South Africa. Until recently, they were shareholders in the local telco service provider. They have often been blamed for the extortionist rates the local (evil monopoly) telco charges, both for domestic and international traffic. The only people who could accurately verify that statement would probably have to have worked within one of the concerned organisations. Their withdrawal happened very much at the same time that the deregulation of the local telco market was announced.

SBC + ATT

[bryan986]

SBC has shitty service. ATT has shitty service. SBC+ATT=Distaster. I would know, Ive used both.

Both companies are keeping the deal quiet?

[RasputinAXP]

This is the loudest quiet deal I've ever heard.

Re:Both companies are keeping the deal quiet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I've worked for SBC before and have a close family member who has worked for years in their regulatory/legal department. She told me that the first she heard about the merger was when I emailed her the other slashdot headline about this the other day. She had quite a few choice words about how it was a tremendous waste of time for the government to break up AT&T originally, for many of the same reasons sited in a few other threads in the discussion (I.E. their wicked huge and well funded development labs and the relative benefit provided to our country by their advances.)

Re:Both companies are keeping the deal quiet?

[squiggleslash]

Quite. Especially as it's featured fairly prominantly on SBC's home page.

Define "quiet"

[physicsphairy]

" Both companies are currently keeping the deal quiet."

Yes, that's quite evident from its being posted on Slashdot, of all places.

Don't worry guys, I'm sure nobody will read it! Probably not even the second or third time they post it!

Re:Define "quiet"

[Suburbanpride]

IIRC, Didn't all the SBC folks deny this last week when it first popped into the news? I find It strange that they would completly deny it if it was already to the point where they wer voting on it.

Re:Define "quiet"

[phalse phace]

Of course nobody will read it. This is /. afterall.

Re:Define "quiet"

[dnoyeb]

Well you don't want the news to break until you get your stock portfolio properly situated.

In other news...

[game kid]

Bill Gates responds "16 billion? If they need the dough they know where to find me."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just wrong. This is about phones not M$ or Sex(?) - OK so maybe pbone sex

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

More like: "I lost my wallet and suddenly SBC can buy AT&T. Hmmm...."

First this, then the world

[Bite-lover]

Does it just rub me wrong that all these major companies are merging? If this trend really continues we could easily find ourselves with no choice on communcations period.

Re:First this, then the world

[Anonymous Coward]

We have choice?

Re:First this, then the world

[game kid]

SBC was one of the "Baby Bells" spun off from AT&T in 1984 for that same reason (because of AT&T's Bell System monopoly). I hope we do not revert to having one massive Bell conglomerate.

Re:First this, then the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only would it be a massive Bell monopoly, but it'd be an *unregulated* Bell monopoly.

Re:First this, then the world

[mtrisk]

Ah yes, but this time, it is the student who has bested the master!

Re:First this, then the world

[Pyrion]

Yup. I just switched phone carriers from the local telephone monopoly to the local cable monopoly.

Re:First this, then the world

[squiggleslash]

SBC is regulated. The FCC regulates the long distance and mobile arms, the PUCs regulate the bulk of the local services.

Great for shareholders

[Anonymous Coward]

bad for the consumer,
question is where exactly are all these consolidations heading ? what happens when there are only 2 giant companies in the whole world ? (see the recent p&g merger) do we wipe them out and start capitalism all over again or maybe we will evolve a better economic model

either way less choice is bad for the consumer

Re:Great for shareholders

[the_2nd_coming]

the next economic model after capitalism will only take hold when capitalism can no longer support the population... however I do not think it will be communism like Marx says... i think that it will be corpratism.... no competition and one monolithic source of production.

if you look at the trends of economic development over the centuries, a slow and even evolution takes place... right now capitalism is being transformed into something else. people will no longer have property but will purchase all their needs from a central body, no, not the government like Marx said, but the corporation... a large monolithic corporation acts just like a communist government. it is responsible for all the welfare of the people who it serves and it serves the people because they all work for it. the government may get supplanted by the corporation at some point.

it sounds bad, but this form of economic system can either be good or bad. it will depend on the implementation... however, new economic transitions (real ones based on natural societal pressures) tend not to fall apart because they take so long to transition from one state to another, giving the society time to accept and learn how to support the system.

Re:Great for shareholders

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T doesn't have a lot of consumers. They've been getting rid of them as fast as they can, concentrating on business. How is this bad for consumers?

Re:Great for shareholders

[Andrew Cady]

I think that this has been the case already, in large part, since the industrial revolution. The original capitalist paradigm of a multitude of companies competing in a single market has simply been obsoleted. Global communication and transportation, among other factors, allow a far greater economy of scale, and thus it has been the case in most markets for a very long time that no two companies have much hope of competing against a single company the size of their combination -- or in any case, far less chance than if they combined to compete.

You are right to point out that a monopoly economy is not necessarily a bad thing. Experience has shown centrally-managed, cooperative monoliths to be capable of far greater efficiency than competitive, decentralized markets, which is of course what we should expect from a technical-scientific point of view; the monolith is far more flexible in its allocation of resources, can easily avoid redundancy, and can benefit far more from the mentioned economy of scale. Competitive markets, of course, have been shown to have surprising advantages, but these are no longer sufficient to justify their existence on the grounds of efficiency in most arenas (excluding labor). Morever, competition within a market, particularly where that competition centers on differential productivity, is clearly an unstable state, for the reasons mentioned above (even if mergers are prohibited, since the smallest companies would simply fail one by one). We cannot hope to maintain it.

The problem, of course, is that the efficiency made possible by monopoly is offset (for the consumer) by the enormous potential for abuse also made possible (the benefit of efficiency is still there, but it serves only the owners of the monopoly). These abuses might be curbed by government regulation, but the typical approaches -- price controls, &c -- have substantial deficiencies.

The ideal solution, from a game-theoretic perspective, would be for consumers of the monopoly service to collectively negotiate a purchase of the service. Thus, the buyers union becomes a monopoly itself, and each party is -- theoretically -- on equal grounds in negotiating the service and its price; the principles involved become very much like those of traditional capitalist models.

In practice, this approach has run into two major obstacles wherever it has been attempted: first, that unions other than corporations are very difficult to form (and governments are far more hostile to union monopolies than corporate ones, making it even harder); second, that the negotiating parties of a union have been historically quite corrupt, particularly when that party has been a political body representing as a union the public benefactors of a government contract -- which is the easiest sort way to effect collective negotiation. However, the approach has worked quite successfully whenever governments negotiate with corporations from other countries, where few conflicts of interest arise.

Even with corruption, though, this more rational bargaining model would prevent the majority of exploitation made available to monopolies, and union monopoly, like corporate monopoly, also allows greater benefits of economy of scale: price discrimination would become capable of far better realization, greatly increasing total wealth. Overall, we would have a much more rational organization of production from a technical perspective, a much more rational means of determining prices from a game-theoretic perspective, and a much more rational mechanism for allocating resources from an economic perspective.

Unfortunately, although we can expect a collective negotiating organization to be stable within a market, its absence is equally stable; each represents a Nash equilibrium (a local maximum where no individual buyer can benefit by changing his individual negotiating strategy). How to hop between these equilibria without government support remains a problem to be solved, but one worthy of much social and political effort.

Re:Great for shareholders

[the_2nd_coming]

what we have now is a pre-corpratism economy. it is still largely capitalist, but corporations are slowly gaining influence and control over the lives of people.

Re:Great for shareholders

[the_2nd_coming]

a Nash equilibrium... who would have thought that humans can be as dumb (collectively) as a basic hill climbing algorithm.

Re:Great for shareholders

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The great weakness in your argument is this:

"a large monolithic corporation acts just like a communist government. it is responsible for all the welfare of the people who it serves and it serves the people because they all work for it"

Sorry Charlie, but corporations have been pushing for ZERO responsibility for years. The real "people who[m] it serves" are the executives, then insitutional shareholders, and then a bit of the general shareholders. Everyone else can just suck vacuum and fight constantly for their due.

Corporatism is actually Fascism. There is no justice in such a system. Power will be concentrated in the hands of people for no particular reason. We may as well just return to having Kings, for all the rationale that's required to support them.

"it sounds bad, but this form of economic system [...]"

No, chum, it sounds bad since it IS bad. Corporations nowadays only practice social responsibility when forced to by law. And populism is failing, leading to decreasing use of such force. Do you really think that corporatizing America (for instance) will keep our air and waters clean? After all, it costs money to process waste, and instead corporations can just dump such waste into rivers and the air. It'll wash downstream and downwind and be out of the corp's area ... problem solved! The execs and other rich will always be able to filter their air and water, so it's not like they'll ever suffer the consequences at any rate.

Re:Great for shareholders

[the_2nd_coming]

hardly... a fascist state is still responsible to its people... that doe snot mean that it is a just state.

Re:Great for shareholders

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What responsibilities will be honored in a state that is not just?

ANTI-Trust?

[gambit3]

It's one thing to say that the boeards give the go-ahead (it was expected), but this deal should REALLY get close Anti-Trust inspection.

THAT's the go-ahead I'm really curious about.

Re:ANTI-Trust?

[gad_zuki!]

>Anti-Trust inspection.

After the DOJ's bang-up job with Microsoft and the FCC and SEC letting just about every merger happen without too many questions, well, I wouldnt expect the GOP run government to do anything remotely pro-consumer.

Re:ANTI-Trust?

[rlds]

There's a slight overlap in the long distance market between these 2 companies. SBC is a startup in that market. AT&T is established, and lately more so in the Business Services side rather than the Consumer Services side. There are no glaring anti-trust issues here.

Good or bad for consumers?

[Suburbanpride]

MY two years with SBC DSl were the worst two years of my life, always down, always slow, laggy on CS. I was glad when my contract was up.

I heard ATT wireless sucked untill it was sold to cingular. If this merger goes through, I wouldn't mind it so much if it meant consumers were going to get better service, but whats the chance of that?

My guess is that this will end up with a lot of layoffs and not much benefit to anyone except for a few large shareholders.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived in the Chicago area for the last 5 years or so, and when I first moved here I got a phone line through SBC. After dealing with THE WORST phone service I have ever had in my life I abruptly got a cell phone and got rid of my regular phone line. The people of Chicago know SBC is a shitty company but here there isn't much you can do, they're pretty much a monopoly. I encourage everyone I know to do the same as I did and ditch the regular phone line for a cell phone. SBC needs to be sent a message so they will hopefully go out of business. The company is slime.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Quattro Vezina]

I heard ATT wireless sucked untill it was sold to cingular.

Funny...my experience is almost the complete opposite of that. Where I live, I got almost no signal with Cingular until they bought ATT Wireless. Now, my signal is somewhat better, but it's still shitty.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

i live in rural Oklahoma and it is the same down south, i am almost ready to ditch the landline for using my cellphone exclusivly (and only turning on the celphone when I need to make a call) today there is email and IM too for quick communications...

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[the_2nd_coming]

my SBC DSL experience was good.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[the_2nd_coming]

that will be great until SBC tightens its relationship with Cingular by purchasing them.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Kiryat Malachi]

Too late; they already own Cingular.

Cingular is a joint venture of SBC and BellSouth. I.E. they are owned by SBC and BellSouth. Don't believe me? Read the first line of this SBC financial report.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Suburbanpride]

I got on SBC when they first got DSL to my area in 2000. It was slow and once a motnh or so, would be down for an entire day. A fe months after my contract expired, and I switched to cable which had since been expanded to my area, I got a letter about a class action lawsuit which offered my a $75 service credit. Aparently they were sued (and lost) over service that was slowler and less reliable than what they claimed. It may have gotten better in the last 5 years, but us early adopters got screwed.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[mellonhead]

In case that wasn't an attempt at humor: SBC owns 60% of Cingular. BellSouth owns the other 40%.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[the_2nd_coming]

early adopters always get screwed... I got screwed by Time-warner cable with their service because it was up for about 4 days a month those first 8 months they had service in my area.

I was kind of pissed but they did not charge me for the lost time.

I wanted to get off my nasty cable monopoly so I got direct TV and DSL from SBC... I enjoy being cable free.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[UID1000000]

It all depends on the area.

For me? Comcast cable was great. SBC Yahoo has no problems. I'm into year two now. It's 1.5Mbps (averages at 1.4Mbps) and I don't have disconnects or anything. Of course *gasps* it could be your hardware.

As for ATT Wireless? I've been with them for almost 5 years. 4 of them on TMDA - no problems. The main problem that I have with ATTWS is the customer service. TDMA department/GSM department are seperate... enough said? I think so. Cingular with the Blues' business accounts will probably end up being pretty decent.

Who knows if it's location. I'm in SE Michigan.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Excelsior]

MY two years with SBC DSl were the worst two years of my life

Dude, if that's the worst thing that's ever happen to you, it must hurt to take a crap with that silver spoon in the way.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[xjerky]

Do you happen to live in the NYC area? If so, that's becuase Cingular technically didn't exist there. They had a sharing agreement where NY Cingular customers used T-Mobile's towers while T-Mobil used Cingular's towers in California. After the merger obviously you could use AT&T's towers as well. For the record I consistently get a better signal using AT&T towers over T-Mobil's

Granted, it was incredibly stupid of Cingular to try to claim to be a national cell provider when they could not service the largest metropolitan area in the country, but now thanks to AT&T they don't have to worry about it.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Quattro Vezina]

Actually, I live in Texas, in a suburb of Dallas, to be exact. This makes it even more pathetic, as Cingular was co-founded by SBC (and they still have a 60% stake in the it), who has had phone service in Texas since they were split off from Ma Bell. There is no excuse for them to have spotty service in Texas.

Speaking of which, ``spotty'' is the perfect word to describe their service here. I used to get a decent signal in my old apartment. It wasn't as good as it should be, but it wasn't horrible, either. I move to a different building in the same complex (it's a huge complex tho...I moved about four buildings south and one building east), and my signal drops to almost nothing.

Three other people in my building have other providers, and they get perfect signal in their apartments. A friend of mine who has Nextel gets perfect signal in my apartment. A friend of mine with Verizon gets the same level of signal I got in my old apartment when he's in my apartment.

My signal is a little better now, but it still sucks. Also, am I correct in assuming that the ATT towers now identify themselves as ``Cingular Extend''? I never saw CE appear on my phone before the buyout went through, and CE appearing coincided with my signal getting a little better.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[bsharitt]

It was just as bad were I lived in Alabama, You'd think that since the local telephone company(BellSouth) helped found it we'd get some coverage, but we're stuck with Verizon and the small regional carriers like Corr.

Re:Good or bad for consumers?

[Eraser_]

On another note, in my area we get pretty good Cingular signal, have for 6 years (Hello PacBell), except in my house, where you had to hunt for signal. ATT has always had spotty service at best, regardless of what the signal on your phone is, from LA to santa barbara. Now that they have merged, and theres a new tower up, I get full signal in and around my house on the ATT tower (Cingular Extended), but it is near useless to make a call on, with Cingular at least when you had a bar, it was signal, and you could talk clearly, with ATT you're lucky if your call goes through at all.

I feel a great disturbance in the POTS. . .

[Limburgher]

...as if thousands of people all dialed 911 at once. . . and got a busy signal.

Re:I feel a great disturbance in the POTS. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent down! Making fun of 9/11 isn't funny!

Even if it is a Matrix reference!

Re:I feel a great disturbance in the POTS. . .

[UTPinky]

911 does have other meanings... In the US, 911 is the phone number to call in the event of an emergency (ie, need the police, the fire dept, an ambulence, etc), and has been for over 35 years...

http://www.911dispatch.com/911_file/history/911his tory.html

oh, and by the way... its a star wars (Obi-Wan Kenobi, episode IV) reference, not a matrix reference.

Re:I feel a great disturbance in the POTS. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

yes however the change from millions to thousands (as in 3 thousand) and the fact that the people on 9/11 were trying to dial 9/11 and did get a busy signal maybe struck a little to close to home

Plus even if it's not about 9/11 and is just about 911 it's still not funny. I bet you would feel the same if your loved one's life was on the line.

Re:I feel a great disturbance in the POTS. . .

[ArthurDent]

The original poster did not have September 11th in mind when he/she wrote the joke. Please just take the joke at face value. Just because you don't think it's funny doesn't mean the rest of us won't be able to just laugh at the intent of the original post. Please please please just let it pass. Do not try to impose your sensitivities on the rest of us.

Wasn't AT&T broken up for a reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remeber correctly didn't we shatter Ma Bell into the baby bells once upon a time? It's like the liquid termenator in T2. It would seem they are all sucking themselves back togeather again.

Re:Wasn't AT&T broken up for a reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

sucking

right on the money

Re:Wasn't AT&T broken up for a reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing the moderation system here on slashdot, I'd wager that the parent has been modded "insightful" because of the terminator reference :)

Re:Wasn't AT&T broken up for a reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put Humpty Dumpty together again ?

History in the making

[Yonkeltron]

Grep through your fortune files for references to AT&T.....it's amazing how many jabs are all too true now.

This is truly the end of an era.

Great

[Bionic_Baboon]

Now were gonna have "Ma SBC"

Re:Great

[erikharrison]

Ha! It's been Ma BellSouth for years. BellSouth just bought up AT&T's wireless services, and most everything of value left in AT&T, SBC is getting their land lines and that's it. SBC has bought all of that old fangled technology, and BellSouth bought all of AT&T's investments in the future.

Did ya hear when Bill Gates recently named BellSouth as one of the companies lined up with MS in a strategic partnership for delivering content to MS based media centers?

I used to do tech suport for BellSouth, back when it didn't suck ass. I was privy to most of this stuff back when it was hush hush under my NDA. I previewed so much technology and saw so many attempts to ramp up broadband acceptance and push digital media hard. Every few months a higher speed of broadband would become available, the existing tech would get cheaper, more incentives would crop up to wean users off of dial up and we were giving out another slew of free MovieLink accounts. All while offering ridiculous discounts to people who bought the whole communications stack from us - broadband, cellphone, landline, and for some markets, even cable.

SBC is the second of the baby bells. BellSouth is number 1.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell was this modded "Offtopic?!?!" You moderatorz need to read a bit more carefully. "Ma SBC" refers to "Ma Bell," which used to be the nickname for AT&T when it was still the Bell System and held the POTS monopoly.

If you don't understand the post, then don't moderate it! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go loosen my panties! Sheesh!

Re:Great

[Dun Malg]

Ha! It's been Ma BellSouth for years. BellSouth just bought up AT&T's wireless services, and most everything of value left in AT&T, SBC is getting their land lines and that's it. SBC has bought all of that old fangled technology, and BellSouth bought all of AT&T's investments in the future.

WTF are you talking about? Cingular bought AT&T Wireless. BellSouth has a 40% share in Cingular, while SBC has 60%. Cingular is a joint venture between the two, with SBC holding a controlling interest. What is happening now is that SBC is buying what's left of AT&T for itself.

SBC is the second of the baby bells. BellSouth is number 1.

SBC's market cap is $78.31B, while BellSouth's is $49.29B. I'm not sure by what twisted metric you consider BellSouth to be "number 1".

Re:Great

[squiggleslash]

Cingular bought AT&T Wireless. Cingular is co-owned by BellSouth and SBC. SBC owns about 60% of Cingular...

I don't believe BellSouth is the number 1 Bell either. Verizon is definitely larger. SBC might even be larger, I'm not sure. Verizon has pretty much the entire North East under its oppresive boot, and SBC has much of the South West, California, and North West under its. BellSouth has a collection of not-very-populous southern states, the only biggie being Florida, which it shares with Verizon.

Re:Great

[Dun Malg]

OK, I just noticed THIS sentence, which I missed before:

Did ya hear when Bill Gates recently named BellSouth as one of the companies lined up with MS in a strategic partnership for delivering content to MS based media centers?

Didya also hear that Verizon, SBC, and Comcast are ALSO part of the same strategic partnership? Honestly, I don't understand your rabid cheerleading for (at best) a third-rank telecom.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this offtopic?

Bell Labs

[jaymzter]

Any word on what this means for Bell Labs? Does SBC have an equivalent, or experience managing an organization like that? It would be a shame to see a legacy like that come to an end, sold or be spun off.

Re:Bell Labs

[GuruBuckaroo]

Umm.. didn't Bell Labs get sold/spun off to Lucent years ago?

My uncle used to work for Bell Labs. He was one of the people who developed the gallium arsenide chip. I got to tour the place once - way back in, say, '78 - and saw all sorts of nifty stuff. The one thing I remember was the Videophone they had. They thought it would be ubiquitous within 10 years time.

Sigh. The future ain't what it used to be.

Re:Bell Labs

[Suburbanpride]

My uncle was a pure researcher in the laser wing at bell labs from 1975-2001. Between 1996-2001 when lucent took over, his department went from over 250 people, to 100, to 50 and then to none. Lucent was interested in only keeping its stock price high (it didn't work) and not investing into research that might not be profitible until along time down the road.

Without an investment in research, american industry would be no where. and if everyone keeps cutting their R&d, I think the the Asian companies will put every american one out of business.

My uncle is currently working with a Japanese company, along with AMD to develop a ~50nm silicon etching process that may be profitible by 2010. Right now its a big money hole, but in 5 years, it could be the next big thing.

There is no creativity or risk taking going on at bell labs anymore.

Re:Bell Labs

[caliche]

When Lucent split off from AT&T, the Labs split as well. The name Bell Labs went with Lucent. The portion of the Labs that stayed with AT&T is named AT&T Labs. It's still alive and well.

Re:Bell Labs

[Anonymous Coward]

In answer to your question, Bell Labs died in the late nineties as a spin-off from AT&T. It was idiotic. No R&D arm can survive without the parent company working as a cash cow.

SBC does have its own R&D, now called SBC Labs. They've been around for a while under different names, SBC-TRI being the most immediate predecessor (technology resources or something). They are presently based in Austin, TX and San Ramon, CA to the best of my knowledge.

FYI, everyone likes to talk about all the inventions that NASA coined that are just a part of our lives today. I'd like to remind you all that the following were invented under a monopoly that everyone loves to hate:

• the transistor
  
• modern information and communications theory
  
• fiber optic communications
  

Re:Bell Labs

[rlds]

The Bell Labs of past fame went to Lucent. AT&T has their own AT&T Labs, which consisted of some people who were from the old Bell Labs. However, a lot of it is doing IT for the AT&T network, but also a lot of that was outsourced to IBM which in turn outsourced to India, etc. So it's really up to the big guys at SBC about what to do with the AT&T Labs.

The purpose of purposelessness

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going to have to take a serious look at antitrust law in the United States. It seems like we don't ever enforce in a real way. We make moves to enforce it, we convict people, and then we stop short of solving the problem. There's one big instance of this I'm not going to mention to prevent dragging in a flamewar. But the instance here... we broke up a telephone monopoly, yet appear to have not in any way constricted either its horizontal or vertical monopoly power. SBC retains a monopoly in all the areas it does business in and has done so unbroken since the Ma Bell breakup-- Birch is nothing-- and now it's rejoining after a short break with Ma Bell. We do have successful competing long distance providers now but this may not last too much longer in Texas. Surely this breakup could have been done in a more intelligent way?

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[the_2nd_coming]

umm... Monopolies are not illegal... only abusive ones are.

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Malaria isn't illegal either.

But that doesn't stop Malaria from being a bad thing for consumers.

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[the_2nd_coming]

the OP said It seems like we don't ever enforce in a real way

what is there to enforce if there is no law broken?

if the OP had said that we need to change the law to make it harder for the formation of monopolies, then fine, but that is not what the OP said. the OP implied by that statement that some how this merger would be illegal.

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.

But laws were broken in the case of Ma Bell.

In this case, the government's obligation is to create which restore health and competition to the market. Notice they don't ever talk about "punishment" in antitrust cases? They always talk about "remedies". There's a reason for that.

However, the government's remedy in response to Ma Bell's illegal actions have not successfully restored either health or competition to the market, nor-- now that Ma Bell has reconstituted itself in a form with very nearly the same capacity for abuse-- has it removed the guilty company from a position with the capacity to continue to do the things it was previously convicted of.

Analogous but not strictly relevant examples are available in which the law was found to be broken but a remedy which restores health to the market was not achieved.

So I say, we are going to have to take a serious look at antitrust law in the United States. It seems like we don't ever enforce in a real way.

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature of telephony has changed pretty radically recently. Those are new market conditions, meaning the wheels of economic selection are turning again and companies are trying to survive. I'm not ready yet to scream for an antitrust crackdown.

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, the government's remedy in response to Ma Bell's illegal actions have not successfully restored either health or competition to the market, nor-- now that Ma Bell has reconstituted itself in a form with very nearly the same capacity for abuse-- has it removed the guilty company from a position with the capacity to continue to do the things it was previously convicted of."

Holy crap are you serious? Long distance charges are now an afterthought, they're so cheap. Internet use is widespread. High-bandwidth lines are available for mere thousands a month.

What more do you wnat there to be to consider this a healthy market?

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[the_2nd_coming]

the penalties for AT&T were to be broken up and they could not try to consolidate for a certain time period (which they followed) now we have low rates and technologies have flourished.. again, how is SBC buying AT&T illegal?

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[odin53]

Companies doing mergers over a certain deal value must notify the federal government of the deal under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. Unless I missed it, we don't know yet whether the government is going to challenge the merger, so it's premature to say we don't ever enforce the antitrust law. (It's interesting to note, though, that the DOJ/FTC have challenged several large, high-profile mergers over the past few years but have been shot down in the courts.) In any case, the antitrust enforcement in the US is highly sophisticated; decisions of whether or not to challenge a merger are not taken lightly and not without strong economic analysis to back them up.

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[Twanfox]

While this group of business owners are likely not the same ones in power when the Ma Bell breakup happened, the behavior of companies that have a monopoly position has not gotten better. They do not welcome competition into the marketplace. They do not wish to provide the best service possible, once they have a monopoly. Their goal is simply to get paid. When noone can say "Go suck an egg" and find some other provider, they can do it with impunity.

There are some things such as natural monopolies. Power, water, sewer. These things are best done by a single company that covers everywhere. However, these things are also heavily regulated. Before data circuits became prevelent, the telephone was as well.

We should be cautious about the Bell companies merging again. What proof do we have that they will behave better should they regain their monopoly status? I mean, after all, considering what Microsoft can get away with these days...

Re:The purpose of purposelessness

[NDPTAL85]

Um if they don't behave then people can just switch to VoIP or cellular entirely.

Uh... dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to 1996

In February 1996, the soon-to-be-spun-off systems and technology unit of AT&T [includes Bell Labs] renamed itself Lucent Technologies and launched its separation with an initial public offering of stock issued in April 1996. The spin-off was completed in September 1996 when AT&T distributed its shares of Lucent to AT&T shareholders.

Lack of choice? What we need.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just dreaming this up as I type it.. but it would be nice if we got away from the conventional internet/telephony network and went strictly to a wireless/peer-to-peer model for service. That would send a nice "fuck you" to major companies.

Both companies are keeping the deal quiet?-SHHH!

[Anonymous Coward]

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? GOOD!

too many acronyms!

[Karma Sucks]

Would it kill the submitter to explain what SBC, AT&T and MSNBC *mean*?

So many technical terms so little time...

Re:too many acronyms!

[Aeron65432]

SBC- Southern Bell Communications (one of tbe companies that came from the antitrust suit against Bell) http://www.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=5039 MSNBC- Microsoft and National Broadcasting Corporation. (News) Contender with CNN and FoxNews. Owned by GE and our great friends over in Redmond. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ Now AT&T, honestly where have you been for your whole life. Haven't you seen those incredibly annoying ads for AT&T with the messed up-orange-haired-annoying-guy? AT&T- (American Telephone and Telegraph) Old school phone company since the 1880's. Frequently nailed for antitrust suits. http://www.att.com/

Re:too many acronyms!

[LordNokia]

wait. is that a joke? or are you serious? just in case... SBC- Southern Bell Corp- a baby bell AT&T- American Telegraph and Telephone or something like that MSNBC- not fox news.

Re:too many acronyms!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please browse at -1 to read this comment"

• You got that right...

Re:too many acronyms!

[nmb3000]

Would it kill the submitter to explain what SBC, AT&T and MSNBC *mean*?

SBC: Some Bastard Child of
AT&T: A former Totalitarian Telephone company which
MSNBC: May eventually Sire New Bastard Children.

It's all about that circle of life crap. You know, like the way black widow babies eat their mothers. The corporate paradigm in a nutshell!

Re:too many acronyms!

[squiggleslash]

I think SBC is Southwestern Bell. Southern Bell renamed itself to BellSouth.

Re:too many acronyms!

[Nexx]

Ugh, because everyone got it wrong:

SBC is Southwestern Bell. There's a separate entity called Bell South.

Re:too many acronyms!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it kill the submitter to explain what SBC, AT&T and MSNBC *mean*?

What does it mean?

AYBBTU

Re:too many acronyms!

[Thumpnugget]

AYBBTU

All Your Bells Belong Together, United?

Re:too many acronyms!

[DrewCapu]

The company known as SBC started out as Southwestern Bell, but I do know for a fact that it actually isn't an acronym. I've read it in the company history. I've even posted about it before

Just like ESPN doesn't really stand for anything.

Re:too many acronyms!

[DrewCapu]

Ok, just in case some poor soul decides to ask what ESPN is.

Re:too many acronyms!

[Piquan]

SBC is the parent company of Southwestern Bell. It doesn't stand for anything. They also own one of the cell provider companies or something, and a few other companies.

MSNBC is a TV channel. Or maybe it's a website. I wasn't ever really sure.

AT&T is a modem test command.

Re:too many acronyms!

[Anonymous Coward]

"They also own one of the cell provider companies"

Namely, Cingular, who interestingly enough merged with AT&T Wireless...

Re:too many acronyms!

[Artemis]

Electronic SPorts Network

Re:too many acronyms!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like ESPN doesn't really stand for anything.

Yeah, it does! It's, like, "sports" in Spanish.

Re:too many acronyms!

[DrewCapu]

Wrong. You didn't bother to check the link in my other post :(

As a former Sprint Employee

[malus]

I can say that SBC is completely out of their minds for buying AT&T, a company which has been losing money, in the billions, for years. ... Perhaps SBC has a way to turn this around? I don't know, but I don't think so. I think the stock holders are going to be in for a rude, rude surprise.

As for Sprint? Hah. I would say in 6 to 8 months, you'll see Verizon buying them, assuming the Nextel deal goes through. If it doesn't? Sprint'll abandon it's wireline divisions, hurrah, and sell to the Germans.

Re:As a former Sprint Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

sbc is going to light all of at&t's dark fiber and bring iptv to all!

Re:As a former Sprint Employee

[iPaqMan]

You seriously think that they will let Verizon and Sprint-Nextel merge? That company would have a total market cap of $135 billion dollars! Instantly making it #5 on the fortune list. I will eat my shoe if this were to happen. And for sake of reference, SBC + AT&T would be #11. I have reservations even in this administration that SBC + AT&T will pass FTC muster.

Can you say disgruntled? For all the doom and gloom focused in Sprint's direction you would think that they would be gone by now. I guess their management has an uncanny ability to come out on top. You would think that they knew what they were doing.

Re:As a former Sprint Employee

[papason]

It depends on which way you look at the books. AT&T has not been scrutiny like WorldCom so it's a relative statement. AT&T has been working hard on some good projects and many big customers are waiting for new services.

Re:As a former Sprint Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T has been losing cash because of the management in place. SBC is going to do what every other company does when they buy another company.

hand the golden parachutes to the executive staff, gut the company for it's assetts, use the company trademark and call it done.

all that was wrong with AT&T is completely on the heads of the executives and management, hopefully this merger will fix what was wrong with AT&T.

Please.

[mcc]

I am tired of my internet access options coming down to "would you rather pay money to the local cable monopoly? or the local dsl monopoly?". I exclusively use a cell phone and I don't watch television. I don't particularly want to do business with either of these companies. If there were some third way to get Internet, I wouldn't have to.

P2P wireless isn't terribly realistic given the scaling issues involved, I don't think, but I would LOVE a commercial WiMax provider if it became a viable option.

Re:Please.

[madmancarman]

P2P wireless isn't terribly realistic given the scaling issues involved, I don't think, but I would LOVE a commercial WiMax provider if it became a viable option.

Unless your local government gets involved and sets up a free wireless network for your town, chances are you're going to be buying WiMax from the local phone monopoly as well.

Wait A Minute!

[vjmurphy]

I thought the mother was supposed to eat its young, not vice-versa!

Re:Wait A Minute!

[the_2nd_coming]

not if you read greek Philosophy.

Re:Wait A Minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is vice versa... at least as far as spiders go...

It looks like they mean it.

[Belfy]

When should I expect to receive the "Save the date" card?

Or are they trying to elope?

Stock Prices?

[Anonymous Coward]

So who should I be shorting and who should I go in for a nice long position?

Re:Stock Prices?

[Anonymous Coward]

short any western country, start at USA (dollar is dropping like a stone) and go long in Asia, China, India

I would also like to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Any word on what this means for Burger King? Does SBC have an equivalent, or experience managing an organization like that? It would be a shame to see a legacy like that come to an end, sold or be spun off.

one Bell might not be such a bad thing...

[skydude_20]

this time around.. though i'm still generally against such massive mergers, now you can ditch the Bells/POTS entirely, via a Cable or Satellite provider, and embrace VOIP. I work for a certain VOIP provider and what I've seen is the biggest thing freaking out the Bells is that they have to compete against cable companies on voice.

Re:one Bell might not be such a bad thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bells have been competing against the cable companies on voice since the Telecom Act of 1996, which made it legal for cable companies to over voice services.

The local cable company in my town is very quickly slaughtering the incumbent telco. It knows how to treat its customers, it knows how to offer competitive pricing, and it hasn't hardly touched VoIP yet.

What is the Big Deal?

[ipour]

I don't understand all the hand-wringing about this merger. After the 1984 breakup, all that was left of AT&T was the long-distance service and Bell Labs. They spun that off into Lucent, which crashed and burned. And we all know what happened to long distance service. They dabbled unsuccessfully in cable and wireless - both spectacular failures. This merger is simply the last gasp of a burned out gas giant, with little resemblance to the AT&T of 20 years ago.

And has anyone noticed that the telecommunications industry has changed slightly in that time?

Re:What is the Big Deal?

[rlds]

Absolutely agree. AT&T and companies like MCI lost their viability last year (finally). It took AT&T many bad moves, and MCI its bankruptcy as a fraud, but they still had some hope if they were allowed to resell local service under favorable terms. When the government decided last year that the local service reselling will be based on whatever the local phone company wanted to charge, AT&T and MCI lost any opportunity to bundle their long distance and their local, and therefore lose a marketing advantage they could have had. The Baby Bells won that political game and now AT&T will become part of one of them. Not so sure what will happen to MCI.

Reunion

[mboverload]

Looks like Ma Bell is having a reunion!

Interesting implications for T and Sprint

[Wireless Joe]

I wonder what this will do with their plans to start a MVNO with Sprint? Cingular was supposed to give up the right to the AT&T Wireless name in a few months so T could start AT&T Mobile (or whatever). But if this goes through, there really wouldn't be a point, would there? What would be really interesting would be for T to launch their wireless brand, and then be purchased by SBC.

On another topic, I was with AT&T Wireless when it was spun off in 2001; God was I glad to be away from those LD people. At the time, AT&T was still a somewhat prestigeous place to work, and we were just the peon division. As long as they were still selling their multi-million dollar business service contracts, they had very little vision for what wireless was about to do to their customer base.

I was a little leary when SBC and BLS bought out AT&T Wireless; but there hasn't been much of a change (yet).

Now I'm getting a kick out of being a part of the (probably) acquiring company; it's probably a little childish, but I can't wait for all the high-and-mighty T people to start sweating about their positions.

Re:Interesting implications for T and Sprint

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, hate to break it to you, but after a merger everyone in both companies has to sweat about the possibility of layoffs.

Re:Interesting implications for T and Sprint

[whoopsy]

Now I'm getting a kick out of being a part of the (probably) acquiring company; it's probably a little childish, but I can't wait for all the high-and-mighty T people to start sweating about their positions.

Cause it's not like AT&T hasn't been cutting tens of thousands of job each year, our divisions already reduced by 50-60% to attract potential buyers. Yeah, now I'm gonna START sweating about my position. Ass!!

Re:Interesting implications for T and Sprint

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it's assholes like you the op was talking about. Enjoy your job search. Just hope you don't apply to work for me.

Big companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must everything I do involve some mega conglomerate? It wasn't enough that I had to deal with Ameritech in Illinois and Pacific Bell in California, but now it's just SBC everywhere? And when I purposefully use AT&T long distance *just* to get away from SBC long distance now they want to swallow that, too?

All food are belong to McDonalds and Conagra.
All games are belong to Sony.
All PCs are belong to Microsoft.
All connection are belong to SBC.
All TV are belong to Comcast.
All radio are belong to ClearChannel.
Who set us up the bomb?

Well damn

[/dev/trash]

What good was the ATT breakup, if the Baby Bells just re-merge?

Re:Well damn

[rlds]

The pre-1984 AT&T also included their telecom equipment arm (Western Electric). That became Lucent and all its spinoffs after 1996. Baby Bells will not become equipment makers ever again.

Re:Well damn

[/dev/trash]

So that ATT cordless phone I have, is made by whom?

Re:Well damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, the Telecom Act of 1996 made this different. Prior to that legislation, the incumbent carriers were not forced to allow competition from CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers). After that legislation, the RBOCs (regional Bell operating companies) not only had to allow traffic on their lines, they had to allow the CLECs to install equipment (called collocation) in their offices.

It is quite different now, really. One example, you can go out and buy a telephone, any telephone you want, and use it at home. Prior to 1984, this wasn't "legit" according to AT&T.

The prescence of the CLECs and IEX (inter exchange) carriers competing on both the local and long distance levels will make this merger completely different than the ancient AT&T.

Re:Well damn

[rlds]

AT&T brand is licensed to several consumer product manufacturers. Don't know how much of that is still going on. But it's not made by AT&T, most likely some outfit in Asia.

Re:Well damn

[/dev/trash]

So ATT is still being paid....even if someone else phsyically makes the equipment.

WTF is SBC Thinking & Any Linux Impact?

[vinn]

Having worked in the telco industry for about 4.5 years, I can attest that every dealing I've had with AT&T is truly an awful experience. Whereas SBC seems pretty decent. Having read about SBC's business practices, they seem smarter than this. Is this the inverse of the Qwest/USWest merger? (Another truly awful deal that I imagine Qwest regrets). Here we have the baby Bell buying the long haul carrier. Now, in this case I think it will work better than Qwest/USWest because SBC won't be inheriting a local loop cable plant. Now, everyone start counting how many times they hear the phrase, "consumers will benefit because.."

(..because we'll give the megacorporation more cash to brainwash us with.)

Anyway, what I was really wondering is what impact, if any, this might have on Linux. If I recall correctly, SBC has used Linux heavily for multiple installations. And I heard AT&T is known for having a pretty strong Unix heritage too as well as being known for developing some hardware that uses it. I wonder if there's a chance we'll see anything benefit Linux. Anyone know if SBC has ever released stuff back to the community?

Oh, and congratulations to all the workers who got to read on Slashdot about the new company they'll end up working for.

Re:WTF is SBC Thinking & Any Linux Impact?

[iPaqMan]

"And I heard AT&T is known for having a pretty strong Unix heritage too..."

That's like saying Adam and Eve had a strong heritage of being human.

"... as well as being known for developing some hardware that uses it."

I give up! I hope you are being sarcastic.

Re:WTF is SBC Thinking & Any Linux Impact?

[vinn]

I give up! I hope you are being sarcastic.

And you would be correct.

Indeed. Sure helps for cell phones.

[TheLittleJetson]

I sure like being able to use my Cingular phone on AT&T networks. It's like, all the sudden, my phone doesn't suck anymore!

Still not quite old AT&T

[Stonent1]

That would be more like if SBC bought both AT&T and Verizon as GTE was one of the large chunks of the old system. (GTE + some other companies made up Verizon)

Re:Still not quite old AT&T

[Stonent1]

Rather, Verizon is comprised of some large chunks of the old system. GTE was an outsider...

Re:Still not quite old AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. These days we can at least go out and buy our own telephones and use them without getting screamed at by Ma Bell.

In addition, the cable companies make very excellent telcos and offer competitive pricing to the RBOCs like SBC. Unless the government repealed the telco act of 1996, we'll never see a company like that again (except maybe microsoft...)

SBC really needs their LD Network

[Anonymous Coward]

SBC was approved in Nov 2003 to sell long distance services. Seeing as they don't have their own LD network currently, they need to buy one or build one. It way cheaper to buy an ailing company than build it out.

Currently they are reselling service from Wiltel, but obviously that affects the margins.

The Global services they're getting in the deal are just icing on the cake.

We won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Deregulation might not have changed land-line communication all that much, but it did spawn the cell phone revolution. Now, we at least have the option of getting rid of land-line altogether without becoming disconnected from the rest of society. At this point, even if all the bells do coalesce, it won't matter as much since the product is interpersonal communication, which can be provided by various means.

MOD UP YOU NUMBSKULLS

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfectly natural...

[Anonymous Coward]

As VoIP/internet/wifi/etc take over telecommunications, the existing companies need to band together to fight the competition. If the merger goes through, I would argue that they will better be able to compete with VoIP and stuff like that, driving down both their prices and VoIP prices!

If nothing else, the customer base.

[cbreaker]

ATT has a lot of customers. If they buy ATT they inherit all these customers.

They can ditch all the ATT baggage they don't want, keep the profit centers, and make lots of money. Meanwhile, costing thousands of people their jobs.

Big corporations are a danger to the job market. Every time one of these mergers happens, thousands of employees are standing in the unemployment line. If we end up with one bank, one phone company, and one TV provider, we're fucked. And the current administration will let it all happen.

YHBT. HTH. HAND.

[SEE]

This comment body intentionally left blank.

The 1984 Telephone Companies-- Where They Are Now

[SEE]

With the breakup of AT&T in 1984, the telephone market largely looked like the following:

Long Distance:
AT&T
MCI
Sprint
Qwest

Local Telephone:
Nynex (Baby Bell)
Bell Atlantic (Baby Bell)
BellSouth (Baby Bell)
Ameritech (Baby Bell)
Southwestern Bell (Baby Bell)
U.S. West (Baby Bell)
Pacbell (Baby Bell)
GTE (independent local carrier)

I mean, there were other minor players, but those were the biggies.

Today, if this merger goes through, these players are now parts of:

SBC (AT&T, Southwestern Bell, Pacbell, and Ameritech)
Verizon (Nynex, Bell Atlantic, and GTE)
Qwest (Qwest, U.S. West)
WorldCom (MCI)
Sprint (Sprint)
BellSouth (BellSouth)

AT&T's name?

[blackomegax]

is it just me, or do they need to drop the name. i know it probably sounds nifty as an acronym to PR...but come ON..we dont even use telegraphs anymore. just drop the last T i guess. but "AT" doesnt exactly have a nice corporate sound.. but at least it doesnt sound 100 years old.

Re:AT&T's name?

[sulli]

Maybe they'll rename it to AT&H0 now.

Re:AT&T's name?

[Rob Wilco]

My understanding is that AT&T no longer stands for American Telephone and Telegraph, and that the board actually voted to drop that association a while back, "post-acronym."

Re:AT&T's name?

[Anonymous Coward]

"is it just me, or do they need to drop the name. i know it probably sounds nifty as an acronym to PR...but come ON..we dont even use telegraphs anymore. just drop the last T i guess. but "AT" doesnt exactly have a nice corporate sound.. but at least it doesnt sound 100 years old."

You mean like Twentieth Century Fox?

Keeping it quiet?

[Piquan]

Keeping it quiet? sbc.com has a box on the front page with the SBC and AT&T logos, linking to sbc.merger-news.com.

Is this the way that Gengis Khan kept his real estate aquisitions quiet?

Even reading their name makes my blood boil

[CaptainZapp]

Are those the same blokes that bounce your mail if you complain to abuse@sbcglabal.net due to a full mailbox?

Oh yeah: When you you try postmaster@sbcglobal.com it is equally undelivarable and you get an undeliverable message every 24 hours until it bounces?

If so they are a huge part of the problem and their entire management team deserves to rot in hell, or at least getting tarred feathered and whipped out of town. This of course is also applicable for the "abuse desk" staff, provided they even exists.

Needless to say that this company will never get 1 cents worth of business from me.

Since a hell of a lot of spam seems to originate from their network (according to spamcop reports), I think it's about time to blacklist themn into oblivion.

Slashdot knew before AT&T employees :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Used to be we'd bitch about finding out things from the Wall Street Journal or New York Times before we'd hear about them from our own management. This time it's a bit faster - Slashdot had the news item about three hours before the employee email message went out (4am EST, give or take a time zone or three.)

During the previous round of talks, we saw a lot of PR denying that buyout talks were taking place, followed by an announcement saying they hadn't been able to agree on a price. So this time it's not so surprising that the announcement of a rumor was quickly followed by the announcement of a deal.

Disclaimer: I'm posting this as Anonymous Coward. I'm not logged in. I'm not wearing a suit.

It still won't be what is was

[Gary Destruction]

Lucent Technologies broke off of AT&T. That dropped AT&T down from being a phone company to just being a company that provides phone service.

Re:The 1984 Telephone Companies-- Where They Are N

[Anonymous Coward]

One of your minor players Southern New England Telephone also merged into the SBC fold a couple of years ago.

This was actually good for us as SNET was (is) still a monopoly here in CT. We have never had an alternative POTS provider. The difference between SBC an SNET is SNET had just been milking us with their 60's era switching equipment and low tech. Right after the merge we saw massive upgrades of digital switches (even in small rural towns). Prices are the same but infrastructure is better.

I'm not for these big mergers but for once I benefitted for a short time. I say short time becasue as soon as it was available I switched to Vonage.

I tried to get a job with AT&T

[Wansu]

... but they found out my parents were married when I was born and they wouldn't hire me.

Re:I tried to get a job with AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

> I tried to get a job with AT&T
>... but they found out my parents were married when I was born and they wouldn't hire me.

What? Please explain, say more. Unless this is some kind of joke.

Re:I tried to get a job with AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent means that they only hire bastards. Do a dictionary search if you're still confused.

Work for AT&T? Better get that resume out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if this goes though, prepare to be fired.

This Further Proves...

[bjjohnson]

Well, this opens up all the phrases... The Bell toll, Bell Curve, etc. But seriously... I think that this further proves that all in life is cyclical. Religion, including crusading, (the current gihad crap), Financial, just look at the stock market over time, ups and downs... consistantly, Technology, Client server, fat client, thin client, etc... A person can make a lot of money and so on by playing on these cycles. If only I had that damn venture capital.

Re:This Further Proves...

[Anonymous Coward]

Test http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=678&a=372 592&previousRenderType=6/

Let's see if I understand this correctly...

[StuartLaJoie]

AT&T is broken up via anti-trust suit, and SBC (as Southwestern Bell) is created.

AT&T builds a mobile division, AT&T Wireless, then spins it off.

SBC builds a mobile division, Cingular.

Cingular eats AT&T Wireless.

Now SBC is eating AT&T.

I realize the metaphor isn't quite right, but I'm reminded of Kronos and his children.

Corporatism = Capitalism - (Freedom + Democracy)

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporatism is an extension of capitalism, not a replacement of it. The main function of corporations is to limit liability/responsibility. This is good because it helps allow public investment. But protection from liability can easily be abused.

What I see today in society is not that private ownership is becoming more difficult, but that public oversight is becoming less effective. We are headed for the "ownership society" after all. When has the amount of stuff someone can own ever been greater?

Government no longer responds to the needs of the people, because corporations hold so much power in elections. No matter which party is in power, corporate tax credits flow without much question or debate. Most reforms can't seem to get through without some sort of significant corporate interest attached.

Corporations are neither good nor bad by definition. At least public corporations in the U.S. are supposed to be amoral wealth generating machines. IANAL, but I believe by U.S. law, it would be unethical for a public corporation to give money to a political candidate in order to "spread freedom", but just fine in return for that law, tax credit, or contract coming to them next term.

What is wrong with this situation is not that corporations are evil. What is wrong with this situation is that it is undemocratic. Votes on "corporate interests" are far from evenly distributed. Given the wealth distribution in the U.S. it is fairly clear how much say most people have in defining "corporate interests". Having a stake is not the same as having a say.

Corporatism is a political system, not an economic one. It replaces democracy, not capitalism. What it adds to capitalism is limited liability, which can be used to create plausible deniability, which can be used to gain power without accountability.

Re:The 1984 Telephone Companies-- Where They Are N

[NaDrew]

Here is a graphic from the San Francisco Chronicle which shows that history.