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?

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.