Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SBC and AT&T Boards Vote to Go Ahead

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the death-star-to-tighten-its-grip dept.

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."

25 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Let's not slide back. Or should we? by caferace · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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...

    1. Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we? by tinrobot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

    3. Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    4. Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Let's not slide back. Or should we? by drmerope · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

  2. Both companies are keeping the deal quiet? by RasputinAXP · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  3. Define "quiet" by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Funny
    " 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!

    --
    When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
  4. In other news... by game+kid · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  5. First this, then the world by Bite-lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Bite me. Seriously, I enjoy it.
    1. Re:First this, then the world by game+kid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  6. ANTI-Trust? by gambit3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
  7. Good or bad for consumers? by Suburbanpride · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    sorry 'bout the mess...
  8. I feel a great disturbance in the POTS. . . by Limburgher · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --

    You are not the customer.

  9. Wasn't AT&T broken up for a reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. History in the making by Yonkeltron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Keep the faith, share the code
  11. Bell Labs by jaymzter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  12. The purpose of purposelessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  13. Uh... dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.
  14. too many acronyms! by Karma+Sucks · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    So many technical terms so little time...

    --
    (Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
    1. Re:too many acronyms! by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
  15. Please. by mcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  16. Re:Great for shareholders by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  17. The 1984 Telephone Companies-- Where They Are Now by SEE · · Score: 3, Informative

    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)